Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Topic ban threats at WT:TOKU

Resolved

 – Issue being discussed at WP:RFAR#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong (3) — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tokusatsu#Search soon to begin

Ryulong and JPG-GR have stated that they will seek me topic banned from Power Rangers and tokusatsu articles should I put up another page in those categories for deletion for verification issues. As many of you know, there was previously an AN discussion about Ryulong warning him against his past "if you do it, I will seek that you get blocked" statements. Now, these two editors are stating things like "if you do it, we will seek that you get topic-banned". Ryulong is stating that he will do it through community discussion, while JPG-GR is apparently doing it due to the conduct probation on me, which I don't see how this applies. There is also currently a request for clarification here regarding it. I am not asking anyone to do anything about JPG-GR, but I am about Ryulong. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I do however have to apologize for my tone in the late part of the discussion. Please forgive me. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon has done absolutely nothing to contribute constructively in the topic area that Wikipedia:WikiProject Tokusatsu covers. All he has done is request sourcing, and then send articles to AFD for which he personally cannot find any sources for. This was last evident in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Mondo, where reliable sources were found, but he dismissed them anyway. He has most recently decided to search for reliable sources on the five remaining articles on individual episodes of Power Rangers and will send them to AFD because he will inevitably never find what he considers reliable sources for the pilot episode, as well as a few other major episodes to the series as a whole. JPG-GR (talk · contribs), an administrator who primarily edits in the topic area (or had), plainly stated that if Mythdon went through with his plan, he would begin a discussion to ban Mythdon from editing any and all pages that are within the scope of WikiProject Tokusatsu.

I know that I am only a few editors in the WikiProject who are tired of Mythdon's strict applications of policy and the constant drain on our resources to make every single page comply with his demands. I've wanted to have him banned from the topic area long before the arbitration case that made it fairly clear that he should not do as he is planning without input from other users. We gave him input, he simply does not like it. He is such a pain in the ass to editors who are involved in the WikiProject and who actually contribute. I've written up articles. JPG-GR has written up articles. Other editors have written up articles or worked on already existing articles. Mythdon has done none of this. All he does is randomly question when IP users add information to the article about things that happened in a recent episode of a TV show that Mythdon does not watch, yet he still undoes or reverts their edits. I know that if I had enough time, I could give diffs and whatnot, and I am sure that JPG-GR, once he is notified of this debacle, will provide enough information to further elaborate his and my case against Mythdon.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I did watch Power Rangers, and yes, JPG-GR already has been notified. See their talk page. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I see this thread as a direct violation of your probation: 1) Mythdon is placed under conduct probation for one year, in relation to WikiProject Tokusatsu and Ryulong, broadly construed. This includes, but is not limited to, edit warring and failing to appropriately pursue dispute resolution and to show better communication skills. 2) Any uninvolved administrator may utilize discretionary sanctions, including topic bans and blocks, to enforce this probation. 3) 6) Mythdon is strongly urged: (A) To take his specific concerns about the verifiability of the articles to a wider venue such as Wikipedia:Village Pump, other sister WikiProjects or the Verifiability policy talk page itself and consult his views with others. He is then advised to report the views of others to WikiProject Tokusatsu for discussions; (B) To enhance his level of communication with editors.

This is not the first time I've seen you be disruptive in the past few days. As far as I'm concerned, you are socially incompetent to be a member of this project. Tan | 39 02:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

(Considering the project in question involves shows with people in rubber costumes beating the crap out of each other, I'm not entirely certain that's a bad thing...) HalfShadow 02:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This belongs over at RFAR. I can't read the case result to mean that Myth can't start AfDs or work on the project, but someone else might rightfully do so. The arbs can clarify and then myth can be topic banned or not topic banned. If the case is found to cover this behavior, then the topic ban should hold and myth should find some other area to edit. If the case is not found to hold, then these pretty bold threats should be retracted. Also, tan, I'm not sure "As far as I'm concerned, you are socially incompetent to be a member of this project." is a terribly productive comment for this discussion. Protonk (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if they clarify that AfD is not covered by the probation, then further threats would be even worse than threats now. provided that community discussion supports my AfD procedures. Until anything is clarified, I will not put another article in the subject area up for deletion. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Protonk: Whether or not Mythdon can or will be topic banned is up to the community, not the arbitration committee. He is under arbitration restrictions, but a topic ban proposal should definitely not be forbidden from taking place.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If you take a look at the enforcement of the probation, topic bans are an enforcement by administrators. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

A topic ban can be proposed by a user and then confirmed by the community and enforced by the administrators.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I know. You should also know that administrators can, if they choose, topic ban me if I am inconsistent in terms of conduct at WikiProject Tokusatsu, but as far as I know, I am consistent in terms of conduct, but ArbCom will clarify whether the AfD thing is part of the probation. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been well-aware of Mythdon's habitual disruption for some time now, even before the arbitration case. During the period when I was either editing anonymously or not editing at all, I occasionally checked WT:TOKU and found it consisted largely of highly-disruptive edits by Mythdon. His behavior has not improved one bit since the arbitration case. Further, I'm not sure if a topic-ban from pages under WP:TOKU will be sufficient to curb his disruption; after the arbitration case, he took his disruption to other pages, such as Common Era. There was a long discussion on his talk page about that fracas, where he proves that he is incapable of understanding the rudiments of WP:V and WP:CITE. One arbitrator, FayssalF, has censured Mythdon over his behavior well after the arbitration case was closed. You may view the discussion; I agree with FayssalF's statement that "Mythdon is not here to work collaboratively according to Wikipedia rules, guidelines and ArbCom's rulings". Mythdon doesn't just need topic-banned from pages under WP:TOKU; he needs to be restricted solely to contributing new content to Wikipedia. This means he should be banned from the entire Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: namespaces and banned from deleting content for any reason or advocating deletion of content on talk pages. jgpTC 04:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Jgp, FayssalF did not say that. He said that was apparently the case. To restrict me from removing content for any reason is not anything anyone can support. You seem to be unaware of the consequences of not citing sources, or having articles that you can't reliably source. Just because I don't actually add content doesn't make me disruptive. I remove unsourced information that needs a source per WP:V and WP:RS. I am not habitually disrupting Wikipedia in any way. These AfD's needed to happen, whether or not the result would be in my favor, or other editors favor. I can assure you that I am here to help, not disrupt. My efforts are to motivate sourcing content, not motivate nonsense demands. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I know that 'the community' can topic ban people. But it is totally inappropriate for a wikiproject to topic ban a person simply because that person is afding their articles. We have to ensure that we aren't using the topic ban tool to enforce opinions about content. And frankly when I read the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tokusatsu#Search soon to begin thread I don't see a 'community' topic ban. I see an ultimatum: "stop sending articles to AfD or we will topic ban you". Protonk (talk) 04:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Now somebody's getting it. You phrased it well. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Protonk - I understand why I probably should have used different words there, but really, what I said wasn't any different than straight-up blocking someone - "you are not competent to edit here" isn't meant as an insult so much as a statement of fact. For whatever reason, I feel that Mythdon does not have the proper skills - i.e., he is incompetent - to be a productive member of Wikipedia's collegiate and collaborative community. Some people use the term "incompetent" as a pejorative term; I meant it in its literal sense. Tan | 39 05:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You're capable and willing to parse the multiple connotations of the word competent. That's why I didn't accuse you of engaging in a personal attack (you didn't) and I didn't demand that you rephrase the comment. But there are less adversarial ways to suggest that someone isn't getting the point or that they are being more of a bother than a help. "Competence", especially in the online world, is a word fraught with import and emotion--as you note, since competence is required accusing someone of incompetence disinvites them from the social world. That's critical and I don't think it is to be tossed around lightly. Protonk (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Protonk: The AFDs are not the only issue. It is the fact that Mythdon has not shown in any way shape or form that he can contribute collaboratively with other members of the WikiProject. Mythdon has been shown to be inable to apply sourcing and verifiability policies to the extent that he sends articles to AFD when he personally cannot find anything that he personally believes is a reliable source. He does not contribute to any articles in the scope of the WikiProject, and does not improve the coverage of any articles in the scope of the WikiProject. Instead, he goes "This has no sources" or "This doesn't have enough sources" which to him means "This is not notable" or "This information is not verifiable" when there is more than enough on the internet and in the real world to prove him wrong.

And this sourcing shit goes beyond articles about people in rubber suits beating the crap out of each other. He was told off for his edits at Common Era and a whole bunch of other articles. This thread is wikilawyering to get his way, as he states towards the end of the discussion at WT:TOKU. I have not seen Mythdon contribute constructively anywhere on Wikipedia in more than a year of being up my ass (and not in the good way) on the articles I edit and on other articles I see him editing. There was no "community topic ban" produced yet. It was a statement that if he proceeded to edit the way he claimed he was going to, we would discuss the fact that he be topic banned from articles in the scope of WP:TOKU. His actions tonight in starting up this thread have abbreviated the need for this, because he went forward to wikilawyer his way out of getting topic banned by saying JPG-GR and I were acting improperly. I've yet to see a positive contribution come from him. And that is more than enough to get banned from any website.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

sure. But pretend you are me. Look at the TOKU section devoid of context (I know that we are supposed to contextualize these disputes, but bear with me). That conversation has three participants, you, myth and jpg (with some other minor comments from different users). Between the three of you all that gets exchanged is an intent to continue sending articles to AfD, a broad warning that sending said articles will result in a ban, and escalation of rhetoric on either side. I hesitate to call myth's actions wikilawyering because frankly, in the absence of a RFAR allowing a unilateral topic ban for myth, I would be ashamed of jpg's threats. First the sort of officious 'intent to seek a topic ban' statement: "If you attempt to do as you are threatening using your past-documented misinterpretations of policy, I will seek that you are topic banned from all matters Tokusatsu-related. If you are not willing to edit within Wikipedia policy, then perhaps you do not need to edit Wikipedia." This is followed up a veiled threat, "I'm not trying to persuade you. If you want to edit and follow policy, you will. If you don't, you won't. I'll let your actions, both in general and in relation to your edit restrictions, speak for themselves." Later, you and myth exchange words to the effect that you will seek to topic ban him and then make some vague assertion that his present actions will be proscribed under some future topic ban. This is the opposite of a community forum discussing the ban of a pernicious troublemaker. This is two people in a dispute arguing in an infrequently traveled part of the wiki. I don't mean to say that myth is right. I don't mean to say that he is helpful or that a topic ban, rightly constituted, would be illegitimate. I do mean to say that he shouldn't be considered topic banned now and he isn't wrong to seek some outside input on a process that he clearly has no input on. Protonk (talk) 06:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon is following policies and guidelines and Ryulong is not following policies and guidelines e.g. i added a reference to the Power Rangers article to show that Haim Saban created Power Rangers per WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research then Ryulong starts a discussion on my talk page saying "Do Power Rangers and Mighty Morphin Power Rangers really need references to show that the series was created by Haim Saban? Something like that is so freaking obvious that any statement with that fact in it does not need to be cited." and when i add a fact tag to the Kamen Rider Double article per WP:No original research, Ryulong again starts a discussion on my talk page saying "This is also common sense. Shinkenger is on at 7:30, which is followed by Decade at 8:00, both of which make up the Super Hero Time block. If Double will be airing at 8:00 too, then it will also be part of the Super Hero Time block". Mythdon is not the only user to disagree with Ryulong as me and Drag-5 disagree with Ryulong because he is not following the policies and guidelines. Powergate92Talk 06:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Powergate92, as usual, you don't really add anything to the discussion. Both of those items you bring up are examples of using common sense over requesting that every single sentence on Wikipedia be referenced. Bringing up two different instances of where you and I communicated is pointless and helps no one case.

Protonk, I can understand that the page is in no way frequented and it is simply a discussion between Mythdon, myself, and JPG-GR, but this is in all reality just a way for Mythdon to avoid being put under any other restrictions. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the discussion would be taking place in a low-traffic page such as WT:TOKU. Mythdon is by all means in his right to defend himself from being topic banned. However no discussion has taken place, and the arbitration committee does not need to place the restrictions on him. This is instead, as I've been saying, Mythdon wikilawyering his way out of getting banned by throwing aspersions on me for arguing against him. If the arbitration committee needs to place the topic ban, then fine. I just thought that given enough evidence, the community as a whole can see how his activities are deleterious to the topic area, and the project as a whole. If FayssalF saw this, I don't see why the rest of community cannot either.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

For the arbcom thing, we should be clear. IF the arbcom restriction against myth means he must avoid only a narrow set of behaviors, then it cannot (as I see it) apply to sending articles to AfD. If the restriction blocks myth from being nettlesome to the project more generally, then his behavior may be subject to a topic ban at the discretion of someone like jpg. That's the RFAR question. If his past RFAR does not proscribe his current behavior, than you can still start a thread to topic ban him (I would prefer you start an RFC/U or take the discussion to a more active page), but it would be inappropriate for just two editors to act as though a topic ban was imminent. If the RFAR does apply, then the committee should clarify their case and say as much, rendering a community ban discussion moot. Protonk (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The items i bring up are examples of you not following WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research as Mythdon puts articles up for AfD per WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. Powergate92Talk 18:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a few questions. I hope someone can answer them USING AS FEW WORDS AS POSSIBLE.
i) Is it disrutive for someone to ask for a verifiable reliable source for, eg, "creator of mighty morphing power rangers"?
ii) Is it disruptive for someone to use the production company (and did they actually 'create' it, or just pay money for it? as a reference?
iii) Imagine it is disruptive: What happens? It goes to RFAR, or someone just says "that's it, you're topic banned" or what?
Thanks. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Powergate92's statements have nothing to do with the issue concerning Mythdon. Powergate92 is just as bad in interpreting sourcing policies as Mythdon. It is pointless to ask for references for things which exist elsewhere on Wikipedia or elsewhere in the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the rights/wrongs of Mythdon's attitude or behaviour. However I AM going to draw people's attention to the King Mondo article that's been mentioned. Unless I'm missing something there are ZERO reliable and verifiable secondary sources. Out of the 21 references, 18 are to the TV show - a primary source, 1 to a comic - a primary source, 1 to IMDB - a user submitted resource and not reliable and 1 linking to an interview with an artist that doesn't even appear to mention the character in question. There are NO reliable secondary sources at all. Could someone tell me how the hell this article was not deleted at it's recent AFD? I see a bunch of keep votes which don't address the reliable sources question AT ALL and a non-admin closure. I'm very tempted to DRV this as a blatantly incorrect AFD. Exxolon (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• For the record, I think topic bans are very poor solutions for people who are not violating the rules, no matter how much they might annoy people by asking for citations for things that are obvious to others. Jclemens (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • DRV filed, all participants in original AFD plus the wikiproject notified. Exxolon (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Toku wikipedians, Whatever is happening here for the King Mondo article, is definitely applicable "ad nauseam" to every character under the Tokusatu project. I would suggest that you redirect your collective energies to reaching a consensus of what would constitute a valid referencing standard for all the individual articles that fall under project Toku. There must surely be an article that could be determined the standard by which all other articles will be measured. Don't perpetuate drama!! --76.66.199.118 (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

What the hell does any of this have to directly do with the King Mondo AFD and now DRV? This is a discussion started by Mythdon in defense of a topic ban discussion that has not happened yet, and Protonk's saying that the topic ban should not happen due to there being other RFAR restrictions on Mythdon. RFC/U is a pointless step as it just serves to pick and choose at every bad or questionable thing a user has done. If someone needs to be topicbanned for being unable to contribute constructively, then that person should get topic banned.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I should not be topic banned. I have helped the articles by removing unsourced information, but you dismiss my removals. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm not being clear. I'm sorry. You can start a topic ban discussion. I would prefer you use a venue like RFC/U, but you don't have to. The fact that there was a past RFAR case against myth strengthens your topic ban case, not weakens it. What you can't do is say "we are going to have a topic ban discussion in the future, so consider yourself banned from starting AfDs on subject XYZ". All I am saying WRT the arb case is that if the arbs say "yes, we meant that myth can't act this way" then jpg can topic ban him unilaterally. I commented that myth seemed in the right to bring up this question because the discussion linked above looked a lot like a threat of a unilateral topic ban couched in terms of a community ban. I'll try and be crystal clear here. If you can get support for a topic ban from a broad cross section of wikipedians, then you can ban myth from a set of articles. It shouldn't be a discussion held within the confines of a single project because frankly (see the Gavin Collins debate and EnC 1/2) a wikiproject shouldn't have the power to unilaterally shoo away folks looking for sourcing/notability concerns. Is that clear as to my position? Protonk (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • lol episodes and characters
  • Very well then. There is nothing anywhere that said that the discussion was solely going to take place in the wikiproject. That's just where the discussion of it going to happen started (that and my statement at Mythdon's last clarification request). The issue isn't his sourcing and notability requests. The issue is that he has been shown to be unable to work constructively with other (active) users in the WikiProject. The arbcom appears to be listening to this at the moment.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD list

Just to make all of you aware, here is a list of AfD's I've started on Power Rangers articles:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Rangers episodes (result: keep)
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other Rangers and Ranger-like allies (result: keep)
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers planets (result: delete)
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Rangers (result: delete)
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Rangers foot soldiers (result: delete)
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers monsters (2nd nomination) (result: delete)
7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other Rangers and Ranger-like allies (2nd nomination) (result: keep)
8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers cast members (result: keep)
9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor Power Rangers characters (result: keep/merge)
10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost and Found in Translation (result: redirect)
11. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spells in Power Rangers: Mystic Force (result: delete)
12. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Chamber (result: keep)
13. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sky Tate (result: delete)
14. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Morphers in Power Rangers (result: delete)
15. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green with Evil (result: delete)
16. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Mondo (result: keep)

Hopefully, this will clarify that they're not disruptive, but just sometimes hard to agree with. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Update

<I've just found more AfD's of mine and will re-make the list by next week> —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The list above only lists most of the AfD's. It does not list all of them. I missed some. I'll be creating the new list in my sandbox. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, here's the updated list with additional AfD's:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Rangers episodes (Result; keep)
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other Rangers and Ranger-like allies (Result; keep)
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers planets (Result; delete)
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Rangers (Result; delete)
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Rangers foot soldiers (Result; delete)
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ninja Quest (Result; redirect)
7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers monsters (2nd nomination) (Result; delete)
8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marah and Kapri (Result; delete)
9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other Rangers and Ranger-like allies (2nd nomination) (Result; keep)
10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers cast members (Result; keep/merge)
11. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor Power Rangers characters (Result; keep)
12. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost and Found in Translation (Result; redirect)
13. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spells in Power Rangers: Mystic Force (Result; delete)
14. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Chamber (Result; keep)
15. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sky Tate (Result; delete)
16. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Morphers in Power Rangers (Result; delete)
17. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green with Evil (Result; delete)
18. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Mondo (Result; keep)

—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the problem here? Mythdon (talk · contribs) is sending fiction spinoff articles to AfD, and most of them get deleted. That's entirely in line with policy. Even the main Power Rangers article is weakly cited. Only two of the 45 footnotes are to reliable sources. This looks more like typical grumbling from fans when their fancruft articles are held to Wikipedia's general standards. --John Nagle (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

And yet Ryulong and JPG-GR are threatening to seek me topic-banned. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if your edits are considered no problem, then you have nothing to worry about, do you? I don't see why you felt it was necessary to report Ryulong's and JPG's intention to get you topic banned. What administrator action are you seeking? Some kind of injunction?--Atlan (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems as though this discussion is going nowhere. But, as for your question, I am seeking administrative action that administrators see fit. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That's really vague. Of course this discussion is going nowhere, because nothing actionable actually ocurred. If you don't have any kind of desired resolution this should lead to, this is just needless drama mongering.--Atlan (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. And the issue isn't that he is sending pages to AFD. The issue is that he is sending pages to AFD because he cannot personally find sources for the articles for either major fictional characters who in their right can be considered notable because of his strict interpretations of sourcing and verifiability policies. He only goes out to delete whatever pages he can without bringing them to the attention of WP:TOKU so they can be improved before he sends them to AFD. In the last AFD he made, there were several reliable sources found by an uninvolved editor and he dismissed all of them. There is possibly going to be a discussion concerning topic banning Mythdon from articles in the scope of WP:TOKU because he cannot work constructively with other editors in the scope of the project, of which the AFDs are only a part.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If I search for sources for an article, and if I cannot find any reliable sources, it would be pointless to consult my search to WikiProject Tokusatsu before taking the articles to AfD. All Wikipedia content has to be verifiable, or it cannot be included on Wikipedia. Everything has to be notable before it gets an article on Wikipedia. I am pretty sure now that when I create my next Power Rangers AfD, that you and JPG-GR will, as you both stated, seek me topic-banned. I am sure of this regardless of the result of the AfD. And, one question: Do you think my AfD list above is a good summary of my nominations? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't give a shit if it's a good summary of your nominations. You cannot work with other users.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

How can't I work with other users? Nominating pages for deletion in my ways? Removing unsourced information absent of discussion? How? You should know by now that saying things like "if you put theses pages up for deletion, I will seek that you get topic-banned" is uncalled for, further evidenced by the results of my AfD's. Please know this: The next time I look for sources, and if I don't find sources for an article, that article goes straight to AfD, without question. I'm even planning on nominating other pages for deletion if I can't find sources, within this subject area. I'm sorry, but sometimes, some articles just have to go. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The arbitration committee has proven that you strictly interpret the verifiability and reliable source policies and cannot be trusted in determining things on your own. You absolutely should not nominate any pages in the topic area for deletion without consulting WP:TOKU, WP:TV, WP:JAPAN, etc. because it is extremely likely that where you cannot find reliable sources, other users will.

To other readers of this thread, this last statement of Mythdon's is exactly what I have been saying regarding Mythdon's inability to work with other users. He is acting as judge and jury, getting rid of whatever he can't prove.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I trust that my strict AfD's are beneficial to the project, and I also trust myself in my searches. It would be useless to go through a process that will just get nowhere. The village pump discussion I linked on WT:TOKU only proves that I am right, mostly. Sure, I didn't link to which articles, but it's still the same. And please let me say it again: I will nominate another article for deletion just as soon as sources aren't found, no questions asked, period. I will, at the risk that you'll try to get me topic-banned, do it, if I can't find reliable sources. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What the fuck don't you get about the fact that the arbitration committee has advised you to contact other people before sending articles to AFD?

Still, other people reading this, this is why users at WP:TOKU want Mythdon banned. Because he refuses to work with other users.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because a WikiProject wants me topic-banned doesn't mean the community feels the same way. And, again, there will be nobody to stop me from sending another article to AfD if I can't find reliable sources. You're perfectly welcome to comment at the next AfD. You're just not welcome to say anything uncalled for. I've been saying it for months, approaching a year: Anything that doesn't have a citation should be removed, unless it is cited. I am, actually, not aiming to get every article in the subject area deleted, but a reasonable amount deleted, but for good reasons. I wouldn't be hurt to see you blocked for your comments almost two days ago. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

These statements should be proof that Mythdon cannot work with other users constructively and that he should be banned in some form.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you say will not change anything. End of story. Sorry that it has to come to this. No more replies necessary. I've come to my conclusions, just as you have come to yours. And one more thing, my intention is to help Wikipedia, not hurt it, even though you're not assuming my intentions. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) This doesn't seem to be going anywhere. It would be very helpful to see more references to reliable sources in Power Ranger articles. There are scholarly critiques of the show, such as "The Truth About the Power Rangers", ISBN 0914984675. That doesn't seem to have been referenced anywhere in Wikipedia. The proponents of Power Rangers articles may need to do more homework than is currently being done to avoid deletion. This really is an encyclopedia, and you have to do the research to back up your articles. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This description doesn't really look helpful.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a review and a reliable source. Not all critics are fans. I thought neutrality involved negative views as well. We shouldn't ignore real critics in favor of "I saw it on the show, so that's my source." Now, for the larger picture, is Mythdon is sending articles to AFD to make some sort of point, that's a completely blockable offense. However, demanding higher sources isn't and shouldn't be a punishable offense. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, at this point, it's hard to tell with him. I do know that he's sorta violating this, even though it's not a restriction.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, Ryulong, you're doing a lot of yelling, but all I see here is you trying to get rid of someone you personally dislike who is treading in an area you like to work in. The list of AFD results Mythdon is presenting is most compelling evidence that he's doing genuinely good work, which you just happen to dislike. Jtrainor (talk) 09:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That is not what the issue is here. Mythdon has not worked with the WikiProject but against it. There are possibilities that these articles could be improved, and that there are reliable sources out there, as the book John Nagle points out above, but Mythdon does not work with other users to improve them. Instead he just sends them to AFD. I'm not saying all of the articles he lists that ended up deleted should be on Wikipedia. I'm saying the method by which he goes about sending things to AFD without any outside input is what is a real pain in the ass. He's in his right to request sources, but he does not. He just goes to AFD. This is why I feel he's unhelpful, and this is what a handful of other users, including a few outside of the WikiProject and who have likely never touched an article with "Power Rangers" mentioned, are seeing.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

And this still isn't going anywhere much, except a few people who just happen to get it, but still, I am glad that the area this is turning is turning out to be okay. I don't see action being taken, and I'm sure plenty of you would consider it punitive rather than preventative now, because it happened two days ago, which even I would probably consider action useless now, for now. That doesn't make action lacking preventative use some time in the future. Jtrainor and Nagle, I hope you both manage to resolve this, whether or not you're administrators, or whether or not you're just regular users who happened to drop by; You two seem to get it, and don't see anything disruptive to it. If anyone's assuming bad faith towards me, I can tell you that you're wrong, and that I'm acting in good faith. Ryulong and JPG-GR (well, if you're reading this), stop the threats and just voice your opinions in my AfD's and get it over with instead of adding nonsense drama. However, honestly, I can't tell the whole community's opinion at the moment. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty lame to say those who took your side in the discussion "get it", while all the others don't. The situation simply isn't as black and white as that. I guess it's that kind of attitude that got you on Ryulong's bad side.--Atlan (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter of sides but a matter of the views expressed. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving from here

Where do we go next? This thread has drawn lots of drama in, and me and Ryulong are still fighting over who's right, as of now.

I don't know, but I'm thinking that this drama that Ryulong and JPG-GR caused during the "Search soon to begin" is unhelpful, and just allowed me to believe that ANI was the only option, backed up by the fact that the AN "is this okay?" discussion warned Ryulong against his previous statements of "if you put this page up for deletion, I will seek that you get blocked". He's not doing that anymore, but he's now doing "if you put this page up for deletion, I will seek that you get topic-banned", but in this discussion, he appears to be using "lack of outside input" as a reason for these new statements that are no less disruptive than the preceding statements. So, where do we go from here? All I'm thinking is that further statements like these will allow me to file a new report next time. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The basic complaint seems to be "I'm saying the method by which he goes about sending things to AFD without any outside input is what is a real pain in the ass. He's in his right to request sources, but he does not. He just goes to AFD." Sending an article to AfD, though, doesn't mean instant deletion. It begins a discussion. Proponents of the article have a voice. Articles can be fixed during an AfD and often are. What's happening, though, is that most, but not all, of the articles proposed for AfD actually get deleted. So the AfD nominations aren't futile or mere WP:POINT exercises. The real complaint seems to be that the editors who regularly vote on AfDs support Wikipedia's general standards for notability, which are higher than some in the fan community would like. This is a long-running discussion (see WP:FICT). A few years ago, Wikipedia standards were lower, but in recent years, there's been a gradual tightening up, now that the problem is no longer getting enough articles, but improving the ones we have. This is a good thing, but it does bother some people. I'd suggest the Power Rangers proponents focus on improving their sourcing. Then the AfDs which bother them will fail. --John Nagle (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

When I look for sources, I don't find any, which is why I put these pages up for AfD. Could the lack of citations on the articles be a sign that there aren't reliable sources? I actually have watched Power Rangers before and enjoyed it, so I should be counted as once in the fan community, but I'm not a fan anymore, as far as I can tell, but I don't know. I don't think they can improve the sourcing, except for citing television episodes which would be primary sources, in fact the subject itself, which we should not use. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that you [Mythdon] cannot be trusted to find or not find reliable sources and that you have been weaseling your way out of all of the restrictions and suggestions that have been placed on you by the arbitration committee. In your proposed campaign, you're going to be sending the article on the pilot episode to AFD. You're going to very likely use this search and then say that you can't find any reliable sources.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes that's very likely that I'll not find reliable sources, and as a result, send it to AfD. If I don't find any reliable sources, there's no question that I'll put the page up for deletion. I feel that I can be trusted to look for reliable sources, beyond doubt. What do you mean by "proposed campaign"? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if you actively worked with editors in the topic area, they can find reliable sources where you cannot due to your arbcom-proven inability to do so on your own. Instead of listing the pages for deletion, write up a list of faults, and post it on WT:TOKU instead of asking if your improvements to a random article were okay. Say "This article says this, is that right? Is there something out there that we can say it is true?" instead of saying "Oh, I can't find anything other than fansites that talk about this article. Therefore, it should be deleted."—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes you just have to ignore discussion and go with action. If you can't cite a sentence, it shall by all means be removed to enforce the encyclopedic integrity of Wikipedia as written in WP:V and WP:RS. Asking if my improvements to a random article being okay is not wrong. I think it is, if anything, encouraged by people. If I can't find reliable sources for the next article I search, then, if nothing otherwise happens, there'd be no question that another AfD will be in order. Listen carefully: The next AfD will be by the end of this year (2009). After all, action speaks louder than words. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That is not how this project works. You are supposed to work collaboratively with other users. Not choose to do everything on your own and fight it when others challenge you.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is "prior discussion". I am not saying that discussion isn't a primary factor of this project, because I do acknowledge that. I do not say "do not discuss", but say "do not discuss beforehand". —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I also don't say that discussion doesn't enhance future action. I do acknowledge that. It's just that it doesn't seem that I'm talking right. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon you should see this discussion. Powergate92Talk 17:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm ... let's see:

1. Ryulong adds content to Power Ranger articles
2. Mythdon deletes said content, and cites "no WP:RS
3. Bickering on talk page
4. ANI thread started
5. Community rolls eyes
6. WP:BOLD admin closes thread per "Nothing actionable"
7. Return to step 1

result? endless wiki-loop. — Ched :  ?  17:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't that simple. Mythdon refuses to work with users in the topic area. He could bring up a list of articles that need work in his opinion, but after a Google search he just goes "no reliable sources" and goes to AFD. The arbcom case involving the two of us includes a finding that he is very strict with his readings of policies. This is what is harmful.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, can we at least agree that the resolution cannot be found at ANI? I already stated this discussion is needless drama. We seem to be just going in circles here. Let's just end this. If Ryulong and JPG want to go ahead and initiate a topic ban discussion concerning Mythdon, I'd say let them. If Mythdon wants to go ahead and start Afd's, I'd say let him. Community input will decide the outcome in either scenario.--Atlan (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I am waiting on the arbitration committee to discuss Mythdon's 3rd request for clarification to see if they do something themselves before I take off the kid gloves.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

And I'll be waiting on them too in the meantime to see if AfD has anything to do with my probation. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Myth, where you go from here is this: Ryu has every right to ask for you to be topic banned in a reasonably wide forum of diverse wikipedians (not, in my opinion, in a forum that only includes TOKU members), but he doesn't have the right to perpetually threaten a topic ban in order to get you to act a certain way. You should consider spending less time being the self-appointed shepard of power rangers related content--the issues isn't whether or not you are right but whether or not you can move toward a good solution working in concert. If you are looking to arbcom or AN/I to say "No, ryu can't ask for you to be topic banned", it won't happen. Period. Even if your behavior wasn't unobjectionable and even if you weren't under sanction, it wouldn't be the place for us at AN/I to say you can't be topic banned in the future. As it stands, there is no way we could make that promise. Protonk (talk) 07:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Per Protonk. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing restriction proposal

Resolved

 – Moot; based on ArbCom remedies and request for clar.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I propose the following restriction:

"Mythdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from asking anyone to nominate an article within the scope of WikiProject Tokusatsu for deletion. Similarly, Mythdon is prohibited from making such a nomination himself. However, Mythdon is free to contribute on the talk pages as appropriate."

Any administrator can impose this restriction under the terms of conduct probation applicable: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ryulong#Motion_2. The alternative, of course, is to impose it as a community restriction.

The manner in which he is working with other participants from WikiProject Tokusatsu is problematic. He is not learning from the findings of fact issued by ArbCom: ("Mythdon's interpretation of policies and guidelines" and "Mythdon stance toward the articles" immediately after): his interpretation of the verifiability guidelines in this respect are overly strict and at times disruptive. His comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tokusatsu#Search_soon_to_begin show he has stated that he will be nominating a wide swath of articles for deletion if he can't find sources (which all other three users involved in that discussion have stated he cannot be trusted to do). Mythdon flatly refused to accept any of the suggestions or pointers offered to him in that discussion, and stated that "Requesting deletion at AfD is gaining consensus." Regrettably, I find no other way to properly prevent wikilawyering and this sort of disruption from happening - and most importantly, it forces Mythdon to work with others in the WikiProject. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think something should be added similar to how TTN was restricted from asking other users to things for him in RFAR/E&C and E&C2, because he's been getting very buddy buddy with Powergate92 (talk · contribs) who shares Mythdon's strict interpretations of sourcing policies. I'm not sure what the exact restriction was.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've made an adjustment. Bear in mind that my concern is with Mythdon's conduct at this point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Me and Powergate92 are not "buddy buddy". —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Why should I be restricted from nominating these articles for deletion? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

To prevent you from working un-collaboratively with other members of WikiProject Tokusatsu. I thought that after 24 May 2009, the confrontations between you and other members of WikiProject Tokusatsu would not continue to be a problem - sadly, as seen on WT:TOKU#Search_soon_to_begin, I was mistaken. Given this history, the question should be why is this proposal is so unrestrictive? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

These AfD's are in no way a problem. If you check the results, you'll see what I mean. The list is in the "update" section. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the mere results of your AfDs (50% deletions); I'm talking about your approach foremost. You were requested to have a full discussion with other members of TOKU; you took a fixed view by flatly declining and insisting you will AfD them based on your own resources and decision, no matter how many confrontations that led to within, or outside of, TOKU. By no means am I saying that having such a discussion will definitely (if at all) lead to a different result; for all you know, it may make no difference, or, it may make a difference that everyone benefits from. The fact of the matter is your approach doesn't allow for it. With your approach, something like arbitration would be a first resort than a last resort. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

We'll see what the Arbitration Committee and/or the community says about this proposal. All I can is that I hope it's declined, but we'll be waiting a bit more time. ArbCom has not said anything in the clarification request yet. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I personally neither gain or lose from this proposal, which is why I'm not fussed. But, I'm concerned you're not getting the point regarding why this proposal was made - and even if you are, you haven't been and don't seem to be doing anything to address the underlying issue. IMO, that is what matters. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

And now FayssalF has commented at the request for clarification. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There are still roughly 43 articles related to Power Rangers, even after the recent deletions. That's a bit much. Sending some of the spinout articles to AfD improves Wikipedia. I would encourage the fans to contribute to Wikia's Power Rangers Wiki, with 2,775 articles all related to Power Rangers, and lower editorial standards. --John Nagle (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. What is your opinion on this proposal? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a need for administrator intervention here. --John Nagle (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, Nagle, the issue is not the fact that Mythdon sends articles to AFD. The issue is that he has been, on one part, violating arbcom restrictions/orders/suggestions, and on the other part, his approach. I'm not going to argue that there aren't shitty articles about Power Rangers on Wikipedia that have no references on them currently. This absolutely does not mean that these articles should be punted off to the Power Rangers Wikia which is run by a community that goes to the whim of whatever the newest unfound rumors are coming out of people who have inside information with Disney because they work for ESPN and have access to things the normal editor of Wikipedia does not. The editors on Wikipedia do their best to keep all of the articles within policy, even with the upheavals in the fiction notability guidelines. Mythdon has outright proven and stated that he is not here to work constructively with the users of this project, in particular the users who consider themselves members of WP:TOKU. There are a half dozen active editors of the project at any one time, and Mythdon has yet to work with one other than Powergate92 who is just as restrictive in his policy interpretations (and also I have yet to see positive contributions from).

There are currently five articles on individual episodes, which Mythdon was threatening to send to AFD when he performed a Google search and most definitely would not have found anything he considers a reliable source, and about three-dozen articles on individual characters, some of which may or may not be notable for inclusion on their own, but that is something that can be determined on a case by case basis rather than throwing them to the AFD wolves outright (as I perceive there is a bias against articles on fictional subjects in the users who regularly contribute to AFDs). If Mythdon were to be given free reign (without the obviously clear clarification by FayssalF and Casliber), there would probably be no episode articles except for the lists (his "threat" included the pilot episode and a few puncuated articles that are major points throughout the original six season storyline) and certainly many less articles on the primary characters which have appeared in multiple incarnations of the media.

I wouldn't have a problem if Mythdon had not bothered me so god damn much early on in his career on Wikipedia and certainly if he did not become so intensely strict with his application and execution of policies. I've yet to see him contribute to Wikipedia (the only contribution was a creation of Allies in Power Rangers: Dino Thunder which I subsequently redirected to the main article because it was a direct copy of the content in the section). There is no net gain to the topic area or Wikipedia as a whole from Mythdon's contributions. All he does is garner drama and ill will. I am not the only editor to say this, I am merely the most vocal because of my constant communication with Mythdon because of the crossover in article interests and my initial position as the only administrator who actively edited the subject area.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, tl;dr on the last one. OK .. here's an idea. Ry/My - going back to the thread title: How about a "self-imposed" 30 day restriction. Ry, don't add any material unless you can also provide a ref. My, don't delete material - but rather try to find the refs, and actually add to the collective sum of human knowledge. Ya know, it occurs to me that you both care a great deal about this subject matter. If you two would stop pushing against each other, and actually work together and both push in the same direction - you could probably make the "Power Rangers" topics one of the best on the site. Just a thought. — Ched :  ?  06:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This proposal has served its purpose. Effectively, it was a moot proposal; per the explicit instructions at the request for clarification, Mythdon may be blocked by an admin if he afd's articles, based on the remedies from the ArbCom case. Hopefully both editors, along with other members of the WikiProject can work collaboratively - WT:TOKU would be a better place to figure out how to go about it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Dewan357

Being abusive and racist on the Talk:Pakistan page [1], constantly disruptive and continous POV in numerous articles, asking politely and warned on numerous occasions, still persistant, user's talk page full of warnings and complaints. Has now become racially abusive. Khokhar (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I was about to raise this here myself as an escalation from WQA. The worst one I've seen so far is this one (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup, that comment was rather incivil, wasn't it? But I think all he needs is to do is to have a calm down. Wouldn't you agree?--The Great 20th Century Kettle Boiler (talk) 05:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Note - this user is currently blocked for 24 hours and was not notified about this thread. I have notified them but of course they will not be able to respond for another 22 hours unless unblocked or a talk page section is transcluded here. Exxolon (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope you have taken it to his talk page, sir or madam. You could always try to work things over with a good little chat.--The Great 20th Century Kettle Boiler (talk) 05:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel sorry for the College of New Jersey if the history course there is so bad that he thinks India is one unified racial group, nevermind Pakistan as well. User is a nationalist. User is bushing this nationalist POV and being disruptive and racist while doing so. The key bit about nationalism is that the user is going to be convinced he knows The Truth (tm) and everyone else is wrong, and is unlikely to change. My suggestion - a topic ban from India/Pakistan related articles and a complete ban on any further ad hominem attacks or racial comments. Violating this rule gets blocks of increasing length. Ironholds (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd support a ban from articles relating to India or Pakistan, in addition to civility parole. PhilKnight (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Support from me. Has he been notified of this thread in some way or shape? Ironholds (talk) 08:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

On his talk page. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose the ban. You blocked him before allowing him a chance to speak here?--The Prejudice (talk) 06:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed the relationship between this topic and WP:ANI#Nominate for WP:LAME? Ignore? Other?.—Kww(talk) 01:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The editor has now been blocked for a week. PhilKnight (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

They reinstated the problematic edit noted in the thread linked by Kww above, so in the light of that, previous edit-warring blocks, and this thread, I thought our productive editors could probably do with a break. EyeSerene^talk 18:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I do hope this user gets banned from India/pakistan articles and doesn't get away scot free in a week, the user clearly doesn't care about the offence he causes judging by some messages he left on user talk pages after the initial incident and being banned for 24 hours.Khokhar (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

K.Khokar, your comment sounds like a personal attack against this editor. You may benefit from learning WP:NPA.--Right Angle Fish 90 (talk) 06:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we get a little inspection of the sock drawer? I'm missing a blue one. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable behavior of My cat's breath smells like catfood

This editor, My cat's breath smells like catfood (talk · contribs), is lacking proper etiquette, using Wikipedia mainly as a platform for his childish amusements. His edits on various articles are questionable at the very least. New articles he created, such as this one and that one, are unconstructive and perhaps offensive to many who might view it. And his edit summaries are rather unacceptable considering he resorted to offensive language in a few edit summaries including usage of the “F-word” and phrases pertaining to a particular part of the male anatomy.

It is one thing to see a minor edit that isn’t correct, and fix it. But to see an edit like that, and make such a huge deal out of it like this editor did in such a brash way, I’m sure such behavior is absolutely unacceptable. This is an encyclopedia, not a playground for irrational editors to do whatever they wish on here. This nonsense should not be allowed here. I request that an administrator take a look at this editor’s list of contributions see what I’m talking about, and issue a warning to this editor for his intolerable behavior. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 08:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent contributions seem a bit worrying - see the edit summary here, this redirect, this edit summary, this article... it goes on - not directly vandaltastic, but disruptive and childish. I noticed you didn't inform him about the AN/I thread, and I've taken the liberty of doing so. Personally I'm in favour of a stern cut-the-crap warning and escalating blocks if he keeps it up after that, but we'll see what he says in reply to the ANI notification. Ironholds (talk) 08:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding anything productive in the user's recent edit history. While there's nothing that's over the line enough to warrant an immediate block, we shouldn't encourage people who appear to not be interested in writing an encyclopaedia. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC).

Also note the practical joke on his page (he's mocked up a "You have new messages" alert that leads to the page Practical joke. Fooled me, so nice one! but it's going to piss the hell out of someone with less patience ......Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, he's not the only one with that fake bar. That's an old joke that people did years ago (and some people still have them today). (X! · talk)  · @873  ·  19:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I was only thinking it was unwise for an editor whose actions were likely to draw admin attention to his talkpage. I lol'd, but the admin aiming to deliver a final warning might not find it so funny.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

As much as I enjoy users with a skewed sense of humor (mine is so offbeat you wouldn't believe it), this guy is over the line. I believe a block is warranted, at least a short-term one. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The lyrics on his User page are a copyright violation. I've asked him to remove them. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've given the user a final warning. If he continues, he should be blocked. (X! · talk)  · @876  ·  20:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Something here reminds me of behaviour from User:Tom Sayle in one of his earlier guises, specifically edits to female celebrities, projectspace interests, and rude edit summaries. → ROUX ₪ 20:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked the account indefinitely until further review. After scanning the user's edit history, it is clear the user is gaming the system, and is focused on one non-encyclopedic issue and coming at it from many angles. Kingturtle (talk) 00:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Life imitating art. [2] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Drag-5

I'm doing this in a new section because the old one is just a back and forth between a handful of users and this needs more serious input that is not disrupted by the subject, necessarily. For the tl;dr crowd, skip down to the Cliffs notes.

Drag-5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. He had previously move warred over the location of Kamen Rider Decade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), moving it to an alternate title four times until the page was protected from being moved again. During that time, he made these incivil and disruptive comments [3] [4]. Following a discussion where it was shown he had no consensus, he began a requested move discussion on the talk page. This is resulting in him still having no consensus for his request.

Tonight is when the actual violation of WP:POINT began. He began a requested move discussion for the article Ninpuu Sentai Hurricaneger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which in the past had been moved from Ninpuu Sentai Hurricanger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) when several articles were renamed to match official romanizations from the parent company. This is a violation of WP:POINT because "Hurricanger" was for the longest time the title used by the Latin alphabet-using online communities, so he is making a point by stating that one page has an official title as its name and the other one has one that he deems is not official because of the existence of an English translation (despite various users on the talk page bringing up evidence proving him wrong). He is also following his actions on a different website concerning the spelling of this particular item, but that does not necessarily have to be brought up in detail in this discussion unless anyone wants any specifics.

The Cliffs Notes

Drag-5 is violating WP:POINT by pointing out the disparities of the use of the more common romanized title (but not official English title) on one page and the official romanized title (but not the more common unofficial title) on another by requesting page moves. This coupled with his inability to work with other users constructively, civilly, and calmly ([5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]) should be more than enough for a block of some sort.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

ryulong seems to be constantly attacking me and removing my comments and using foul methods to block what is an innocent following of wikipedia procedures.

ryulong seems to show a personal bias towards me characterised by repeated references to thing that exist in my personal life. he does not concentrate on the articles and the discussion of editing rather he makes comments towards myself.

I am feeling a very strong harrassment by this user and this is proof of it.

I have requested the moves on illustrated pages for sound logical reasons according to wikipedia guidelines and have produced evidence to back up my cases. I have made no comments that remotely support any theory that i may be trying to prove some point. my actions are focused on making wikipedia a more full and complete information source as they should be.

I was quite bold with my original mmove of said page. this is according to wikipedia policy. we are meant to be bold. when ryulong reverted my edit i perhaps should have not reverted it straight away, I cannot change what i did at that time, but since those reverted edits i have acted according to wikipedia policies completely. ryulong, however, seems to continually attack me and use personal information to try and block my discussions and he even has removed some of my comments on hte discussion page without my permission. Drag-5 (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting way out of hand. He and I have been edit warring over the inclusion of the move request at Talk:Ninpuu Sentai Hurricaneger, because we both claim that we are violating different policies. He is accusing me of violating WP:TPNO and I still feel the request is a violation of WP:POINT. I would like something definitive to happen and I don't care if we both get blocked for edit warring.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

My impression is that the both of you have managed to make bogeymen out of each other and you are both taking it far too seriously. Also, in my experience, the common names rule usually trumps the official name. —harej (talk) (cool!) 07:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but google is confusing, as there are more results for the official name than there are for what he is claiming is the more common name. So it seems that the more common name is the one where the page is currently located.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I found the lead of CliffsNotes to be enlightening. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I know. I always thought they were "Cliff's Notes".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Shazam! I had thought it was "CliffNotes" until just now. I expect they are called CliffNotes because that's a little easier to say than CliffsNotes. However, I never read Cliff(s)Notes in school. I tended to read the condensed versions, by John Moschita. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

In any case, the specific nature of the personal attacks from Drag-5 likely say a lot more about Drag-5 than they do about anyone else. "TMI!" :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The disruption on his part (edit war aside) is obvious, though.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong reported for 3RR

Just to let everyone know, Ryulong's been reported for 3RR violation here. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

By a user who I'm a dispute with several hours after the edit war had ended after I compromised and allowed the move request to go on because Drag-5 was most certainly not going to give up.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

How to solve it?

I suggest an RfC over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tokusatsu that would include all the recent naming disputes in that set of articles. An admin could be asked to close the RfC, with the expectation that blocks or move protection could be used to see that the verdict is followed, whatever it may be. After this RfC there could be a moratorium on new move proposals for any of the Tokusatsu articles for a period of time. I urge both parties to stop move warring, Ryulong to stop edit warring and Drag-5 to lay off the personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. this would be the best course of action. I laid off the personal attacks almost immediately so i can assure you that is no longer an issue. I would be very happy for an admin to see over this. also I would be very happy to get some unbiased editors who know wikipedia policies and guidelines well.Drag-5 (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There is already a consensus on both talk pages that the articles are fine as to where they are. There do not need to be any moves of any articles anywhere, mostly because any subsequent requests by Drag-5 would indeed be intentions to make a point, although not necessarily disruptive. There is already no consensus to set a precedent and rename everything in Category:Kamen Rider, which was Drag-5's initial intentions. The subsequent request at Talk:Hurricaneger was a reaction due to the results of one requested move and a mutual knowledge of his activities on another website (which I reference here).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

there is no consensus on either page yet. consensus at the most basic level is an agreement. ther eis still no agreement oon either of these pages.Wikipedia:ConsensusDrag-5 (talk) 02:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a supermajority/consensus not to move at Talk:Kamen Rider Decade. A consensus for what you don't want is still a consensus.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that a RfC would be good. Powergate92Talk 02:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like Ryulong, Drag-5 and Powergate92 would have to agree to ask an uninvolved administrator to study all these discussions and see if there is consensus on the article names. (You'd all be prepared to accept the answer, whatever it was). If the admin thinks there was not enough discussion to resolve this, a further RfC or further move discussions would need to be set up. If so you'd all agree to support that. EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Powergate92 is really an uninvolved party who just gets himself involved in everything. I brought the discussion here because I was waiting for someone to do something regarding Drag-5's WP:POINT violations, as I saw them. There is currently a supermajority against the move on one page, and I feel that the move on the other page is the WP:POINT issue as I state higher up at The Cliffs Notes (also there's very little input from other individuals on the second request).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You do not appear to have read Wikipedia:Consensus as it states quite clearly, concensus is not in numbers. EdJohnston, I support an admin checking over the discussions. Drag-5 (talk) 02:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The consensus is against you. And if an uninvolved administrator has to look at the discussions, that is what their placments at WP:RM should be for.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I also support an admin checking over the discussions. Powergate92Talk 03:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong, Do you agree to abiding by an admins decision in this matter? Drag-5 (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

What decision will be made? There's a general agreement that you are wrong on one page and no discussion on another. An admin does not have to decide anything like that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The decision will be if there is consensus for move or if there is consensus for no moveDrag-5 (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Rmcnew and Socionics

• Rmcnew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Rmcnew has been, over the course of the last month or two, making extensive edits to the page on socionics, continually including a section suggesting that socionics has an esoteric foundation and verifiable relations to chakras, hindu mysticism, alchemy, and other things. a couple of people have written papers hypothesizing about such connections, which would be appropriate for inclusion. yet rmcnew continues to insist unequivocally that the socionics page must include a section claiming verifiable ties, and the role of esotericism in forming the foundation for the theory. this page has been going on for months, was recently the subject of an [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socionics|AfD] ](mostly precipitated by mcnew's insistent action) which concluded that the page needed restructuring and improvement in accordance with the existing verifiable sources on the topic. rmcnew's presence is effectively blocking this rewrite, and he has continually provided the same unreliable sources to back up his claim, which everyone involved in the discussion (about 3-4 people) except him would agree is essentially hopeless. good faith efforts to talk about the sources presented and identify those which need to be changed have produced some good discussion and have helped to identify other parts of the article that need to be cleaned up (but can't, because of the ongoing dispute), but mostly more of the same, including a lot of name calling (mostly from rmcnew).

i've had no idea what to do about this situation, and have continued to debunk his claims while essentially having given up any hope of ever resolving the situation. i think immediate admin intervention is warranted. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 08:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Rmcnew is, in my mind, a vandal, period. Bearian (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring is against policy. Rmcnew is under the same obligation as anyone else to find consensus to support the changes he wants to make to the article. There may come a time that an administrator could warn him against reverting to a version of the article that does not have consensus. However I don't see any diffs in the above report, and the claim so far is that rmcnew's presence is effectively blocking this rewrite, which is a rather vague statement. At present, this is not definite enough to take any action on, in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

ask for diffs and ye shall receive: drawn out broad based edit warring by rmcnew, recreating the section on esoteric socionics several times, reverted variously by other users since the beginning of june. [12], [13], [14]. a quick overview of the talk page shows it absolutely cluttered with very unproductive and insistent argumentation, including name-calling and accusing others of editing in bad faith. rmcnew's most recent tactic is the suggestion that article abstracts about articles written in russian that nobody knows how to get a hold of discussing hypothesized correlations are sufficient evidence for the kinds of edits he's been making. the discussions there are very similar mcnew's comments below, which few people have tried to respond to. because of the ongoing edit war and an agreement to try to resolve it on the talk page, few changes have been made to the page by other users since july 14, at which point rmcnew made one last revert with the commentary of making his changes into the "final version;" fortunately nobody objected. i think there's easily enough to think of rmcnew as edit warring; whether that makes him an all-out vandal is an open question, but he could easily qualify in my opinion. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 04:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that niffweed is twisting the truth. No one is really to blame for the edit war. The edit warring was resulting because of differing viewpoints on how socionics itself should be represented as a whole, and also because people (such as tcaudillig) were continually reediting parts of things that I had personally written to become out-of-context (since I am the only one who has been writing anything about the esoteric qualities of socionics) and also others deleting sections of the article out that had verifiable and substantiated sources that justified their existence. To be fair I have invited others to help edit the article in a way that we would all agree is neutral. Unfortunately, this has been a frustrating experience as many of the editors are still letting their feelings get in the way of doing any productive work and despite verifiable sources to the case are often more interested in "ignoring the exegetical context of the verifiable source evidence and instead using exegesis" and/or "unnecessary and unreasonable debunking (by eisegesis)" those sources that justify the positions of the esoteric article, than they are in actually doing any sort of cooperative rewrite. Now, when certain editors would finally be willing to put aside their personal feelings and beliefs on the matter and focus on actually doing a neutral rewrite that represents all differing sides (even those opposite to their own) the article rewrite would continue effectively. That is my suggestion and I hope others would see the reasonable nature of this request, and actually follow along with it. --Rmcnew (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I should also comment on niffweed's statement " rmcnew's most recent tactic is the suggestion that article abstracts about articles written in russian that nobody knows how to get a hold of discussing hypothesized correlations are sufficient evidence for the kinds of edits he's been making" should be addressed. The article abstracts in question are from a legitimate, verifiable, and official socionics journal that publishes socionic articles to the russian socionics world. In fact, they are from the school in Kiev that was founded by Alexander Bukalov, who knew the founder Ausura Augusta personally. The socionics school allows and encourages non-empirical (intentionally unscientific), mystic and esoteric views of socionics to be published officially in their journals in the russian speaking world. It is completely substantiated that the development of socionics has both an empirical viewpoint and a mystic one, and that there are separate schools that focus on either empirical methods or mystical ones. Most of their material is in russian, though they do have some english article abstracts of their articles that are translated. I have listed some of those below as well as a statement from Dmitri Lytov concerning the development of socionics. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

socionic sources showing esoteric connections

Source: http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/ejpsy/psy_0412.html#top

Physics of Consciousness Boukalov A.V. Conscience and the Universe

It is shown that the universal vacuum if viewed as a conglomerate of relativist fields may be described as a giant computing system that controls movement of micro-particles and macro-bodies (planets, stars, etc.) Alike physical processes run in semiconductor crystals of modern computers used for construction of artificial intelligence systems. As an analogue of macro-computer, the Universe in total inevitably possesses attributes of consciousness and intelligence, and its particular subsystems interact with human consciousness and find their interpretation within the framework of religious systems and beliefs. Key words: consciousness, physical vacuum, computer, computations, religion. --Rmcnew (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Note - this is blatant hermeticism, is cosmological, and states things that could be quoted from the kybalion

Source: http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/ejpsy/psy_0612.html

Analytical Psychology Kameneva I.P. Psychical Energy: Symbols and Metamorphoses

C.G.Jung's ideas on psychical energy are considered in the context of his psychoanalytical experience set forth in his work Libido, Its Metamorphoses and Symbols. Symbols of psychical energy indicate the direction of its movement from the mother to other objects and images, which in general reminds dynamics of Kundalini energy in Tantra Yoga. In A.Augustinavichiute's model the scheme of informational metabolism of each type determines specifics of its energetic potential and in separate cases also aptitude towards certain esoteric practices. Key words: symbols, consciousness, unconscious, archetypes, psychical energy (libido), system of Chakras, psychical functions, informational metabolism, energetic metabolism, mental loop, vital loop, socionics.

Note - this statement, even as an abstract is clear that socionics in relation to the theoretical model of the founder ausura augusta has an aptitude to esotericism. What is that esoterism like?

Source: http://www.socioniko.net/en/articles/lytovs-intro2.html

In 1980—1995 socionics existed as a "club of adherents" outside the official psychology. Groups of socionists appeared in different cities of the Soviet Union, but this was not enough to make socionics recognized by official psychologists. On the one hand, such isolation from psychologists positively influenced socionics: it developed without Marxist-Leninist stereotypes that overloaded Soviet psychological works of that time. On the other hand, such isolation created an illusion among many socionists that socionics were not a part of psychology, it rather were “a new science” with its own methods, subject etc. This was a dangerous trend: there was a real danger that socionics would turn into something esoteric, mystical.

Note - why was there a danger of socionics becoming something that was just esoteric or mystic?

rmcnew's view

Perhaps I should explain the situation here. The wikipedia page is overrun 99% by western proponents of socionics theory who do not personally use esoteric methods with their understanding of socionics (and are actually personally against those sort of applications); however, it is substantial that socionics, as it has been learned by these proponents 100% over the internet through Sergei Ganin's website socionics.com, who himself presented socionics as "something similar to MBTI without any emphasis on esoteric methods) is in fact connected in its original form currently and from the founders themselves with mystic and esoteric methods, including the usage of chakras, hermetic derived and similar philosophy, and current new age theories derived from people such as Consteneda.

I should note in reference that without including an esoteric section with a non-proponent section in the article, a large portion of the socionics world who have a legitimate use of socionics with esoteric and mystical methods would be without representation, and a large portion of the non-proponent socionic world, such as the rational skeptics, would be without presentation. Therefore, it is an act of neutrality to include such a section. For neutrality purposes and as a volunteer representative of these viewpoints, I defend these viewpoints, though I do not necessarily hold to them myself. I defend these viewpoints because I feel that they are underrepresented and repressed, and that acknowledgment of these viewpoints are a means of integrity, honesty, and respect towards the theory of socionics. I am highly disappointed that there are others who do not share this view and wish these viewpoints to disappear. I will state, however, that in the russian language there is a large majority of socionist whose applications of socionics are of a mystical and esoteric quality. Those who edit wikipedia are majorly of the empirical branch of socionics who wish to turn it into a legitimate science. It is my utter goal to represent all of these viewpoints in the article, but many of the editors do not want representation of these viewpoints at all in the article, and only uphold just one viewpoint.

I would like to also answer the charge that progress is being held up by my presence in the article. This charge is completely and utterly false. I don't understand why the other editors who want nothing to do with the socionics section that deals with esoteric and criticism of socionics just start editing the other parts of the article that deal with something else, and let those who are interested in helping to rewrite the portions written by me (esoteric and criticism sections) just help find sources and rewrite those portions aaccording to the sources. Those who are making this charge that I am holding up progress feel that if they can ban me from the article, that there would no longer be representation for the viewpoints I have been (to my best ability) neutrally describing and to a certain degree against my own personal usage of socionics theory, which is empirical and non-esoteric and non-mystical. I am basically the entire author of the esoteric article itself as well as the radical skepticism critic portion. I have asked for help numerous times from people such as niffweed, tcaulldig, and rudieboy to rewrite the article according to a win-win more neutral standard, but this help has not only been denied I find out that these same people are wanting to block any representatives of these viewpoints out of the article so they can (according to my perception) monopolize the wikipedia socionics article for one viewpoint in socionics only, when it is not the only view in socionics theory. I am seriously disappointed and find these actions to be non-neutral in light of the whole article.

I would like to say something else also. The esoteric and mystical viewpoints in socionics theory are heavily substantiated by verifiable sources. Those people who are complaining have been avoiding looking too deep at those sources (or even at all) and instead have resorted to passive-aggressive ad hominem attacks in order to avoid dealing with discussions of the issues neutrally with the hopes that the representation of the various viewpoints would be forced out and thus the information. I should note that wikipedia is not a place to monopolize for just one viewpoint, and I am not going to allow for that. Unfortunately I am also currently alone in that effort to represent these other viewpoints among some of the other editors. Some of the editors have also suggested shortening chapters 10 and 11 in the socionics article down to two sentences or less, but it seems to me like this is simply a coy to avoid dealing with the substantiation of the esoteric and mystic issue by those who are not partial to those applications, so I disagree with the suggestion unless under more reasonable terms (such as stating the same information shorter and with better quality). I also disagree with any suggestion that the total disappearance of sections 10 and 11 (removing them completely) warrants progress on a rewrite, which is typically the claim by those who have made the current complaint. I do agree that lack of cooperation (meaning refusal to help to find verifiable sources, unneutrally debunking verifiable sources or refusing to do any rewriting themselves personally using verifiable sources) by some who have been making the complaints have been effectively blocking progress to a win-win solution, because these people are for win-lose. They want their view and no others. I am for win-win solutions. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

History of terrorism

I stumbled across this article whilst patrolling changes and reverted an unexplained removal of about 10kB of content, that did not appear to be agreed on the talkpage. I was subsequently reverted, and the user LSG280709 basically told me not to get involved in things I didn't know about. (To be fair, I've never read the article before so a lot of stuff has probably gone on that I do not know about).

Looking into it a bit more there has been an ongoing battle at this page for a long time, that has escalated over the last month with repeated removal of content and then reversions. It has not been helped by fractious edit summaries, claims of consensus when there doesn't appear to be any and so on. Of the last 100 edits, about half of them are reverting.

I wasn't sure whether to bring this to the edit warring page, or RFPP, but the dispute seems to have been going on for a long time and there are lots of conduct as well as content issues to look at. As well as the user mentioned above, the other parties I can tell are: User:Haberstr, User:Sherzo, User:Impala2009 and 92.239.38.135 (who was recently blocked for a week). Quantpole (talk) 08:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

User:LSG280709 is a new user who has jumped straight into edit warring on that article and has removed several warnings from his talk page. My apologies, this was not true Theresa Knott | token threats 09:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked LSG280709 for 24 hours for recent egregious edit-warring to remove sourced content (well, some of it is sourced). I've also applied full-protection for a week, which can be extended as necessary. The article needs a fair amount of work and it's nature means it'll inevitably be something of a battleground, so although a few more blocks could probably be handed out they'd be after the fact and would prevent any talk-page discussion that might improve things. I'll keep it watchlisted anyhow, and more eyes would no doubt be useful ;) EyeSerene^talk 10:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It was never a battleground before Haberstr starting pushing a POV, just check the edit history you'll see that when Haberstr isn't active on the page it doesn't have these problems. the LSG user is me btw i created to show that registered editors get different treatment to unregistered ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.38.135 (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

First I feel you have locked the wrong version of the page, the page is overlong and the definition section was removed a long time ago as the definition of terrorism article handles this complex issue well without the history of terrorism article trying to replicate it. If you look through the changes Haberstr actually deletes content that disagrees with his POV and reintroduces previously condensed material despite previous consensus [15]. If you read the vast about of topics started by Haberstr to push his particularly perspective i think this will become self evident to as it did to the other editors on the board. Sherzo (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You might like to read m:The wrong version Note, not in any way a comment on your polite request!  ;) The reason I reverted to that version was that it seemed to be the status quo version (as far as it was possible to tell), and LSG280709 had removed a fair amount of sourced material - essentially, I didn't feel their blatant edit-warring deserved a pay-off. However, if you can show a current consensus on the article talk-page that another version is better, I (or any admin) will happily change it around for you. As an admin I can't really start judging content, but if you believe Haberstr's editing needs examining, a request for comment might be a good way to get some outside eyes on things. EyeSerene^talk 16:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The last consensus was that the article needed to be condensed an objective Haberstr has proved an obstacle to as he has repeatedly reintroduced condensed material, such as the Contras. The material that haberstr has added is of a highly POV nature that has repeatedly failed to gain any consensus and represents Haberstr personal POV, he also deletes sourced content hiding it among other edits that doesn't match his perspective, particularly in the WW2 section. The dates of the tags he placed are also misleading nor has he justified them on the talkpage I would appreciate in the very least that the dates on the tags reflect when he actually placed them. I know it maybe a burden but i feel you can only get a fair reflect of this case by reading the extensive talk archive that has been generated since Haberstr stated pushing a POV on the page. The last argument i would offer for the other less problematic version is that the current version is very long and causes difficulty loading. I would ask at the very least that that the material that is deleted in version be restored. in close i feel i must state that the current version is a determent to wikipedia and its aim of being a reliable academic source. Sherzo (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

On what evidence did you base the fact that Haberstr's agenda version was the "status quo"? if your taking that by the fact other editors reverted by reverts thats just because they are knee jerk reacts by editors who can't be bothered to read edit summaries talk pages or their own pages as in this example User talk:Impala2009 &diff=302642349&oldid=302642266 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.38.135 (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Section Restored

I restored that section - it is vadalism to delte it . You are welcome as Administrator to state your judgement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiens (talk • contribs) 18:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

um, what? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Hiens restored the section below. [16] Dougweller (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal Attacks made on Talk:Strawberry Swing

User:Das Ansehnlisch has made two personal attacks against User:JD554. The first can be found here. After the first remark, JD554 gave him a final warning for personal attacks [17], and I warned him on the article's talk page. However, he made another attack this morning here. I need an admin to take a look at this to decide whether to block or not, because I am not sure the final warning template being used as the first warning was warranted, given that the first attack was just a simple "screw you". However, the second attack was much worse than the first, and might warrant a blocking regardless. Taking a look at the user's talk page, it seems clear that he has a history of editing in bad faith. Fingerz 21:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette Alerts are <---thisaway. I can see some incivility on both sides - yes Das Ansehnlisch said "screw you", but sticking a level 4a single shot warning template on his talk page instead of trying to TALK to the guy also qualifies as incivility. Can't see anything here for admin action.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Those personal attacks were inappropriate and should be dealt with accordingly. However, JD554 could've been more helpful to that editor.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 02:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not condoning incivility, but an exchange along the lines of "I don't agree so screw you" "4a single shot cease or die warning" "Shut up, you're not helping, you suck" which started on 22 July and was over six hours before the third party referred it here is a bit stale, don't you think. If they had carried on hammer 'n' tongs then yes, it did need admin action, but when I looked the protagonists seemed to have separated and Das Ansehnlisch had gone elsewhere to create an article on a different song.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason I gave Das Ansehnlisch his 4a warning was due to his previous incivility[18][19] and creation of attack pages (which led to him being blocked[20]). I would also like to ask Sky Attacker what more I am expected to do to help Dad Ansehnlish appart from the numerous times I've tried to explain Wikipedia's guidelines to him.[21][22][23] as well as the numerous attempts to help the various editors (inlcudind Das Ansehnlisch) at Talk:Strawberry Swing[24][25][26][27][28][29]. And Das Ansehnlish's contributions to the discussion (as well as the ones given in Fingerz initial statement) include these[30][31]. --JD554 (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Will Beback (Administrator)

(Moved from WP:AN)

I came across User:Will Beback on the Ridgecrest, California article. This user and others deleted allot of stuff in this article to get back at a user that they blocked. I wanted to add some of the stuff they deleted back and this user reverted it 4 times Potentially violating the three revert rule and then protected the article saying there been Vandalism , Witch there has not. This is what the article look like before they tore it up SEEN HERE. This what it look like now SEEN HERE. I just don’t think its fair for this Administrator to do what they been doing. I request that some of the info to be added back and the article not be protected. One more thing is this Administrator blocks users if they don’t like the IP address or user. I know frst hand.--71.105.39.114 (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well first of all you're not doing yourself any favors with comments like this which come off as rather uncivil. Nor is edit warring a good idea, which you are both doing. This does seem to be a content dispute and not a simple case of vandalism, and I think Will Beback was likely wrong to refer to it as the latter, though I could be convinced otherwise. It does seem rather inappropriate for Beback to have protected the article, since he is clearly working on the content rather than simply reverting "vandalism" (see the July 25th edits for example) and therefore too involved to lock out IP editors from the article. If 71.105.39.114, who again is clearly edit warring and needs to go to the article talk page and work it out there, has even a 5-10% legitimate point about some of the content than Beback's decision to protect the article has essentially given him an advantage in a content dispute.

I'd like to see what Will has to say here - I'll check and see if he's been informed - but probably the article should be unprotected, and then re-semi-protected by another admin if necessary, and all parties should go to the talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I have taken a look at the history and Will Beback's edits look fine to me. It is 71.105.39.114 readding and then edit warring over things that isn't cool. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite possibly, but the question is whether there is, to at least some degree, a legitimate dispute about content, which at least for me is hard to ascertain after looking through the disputed edits. If so then the edit warring is bad on both ends, and the semi-protection by Will was probably inappropriate since he is involved. Right now it looks a bit like that to me but I could be wrong, and regardless I'll wait to hear what Will says. I've informed him of this thread. However this shakes out it does not strike me as a major issue at all, and probably could have been avoided had both parties gone to the talk page sooner (Will ultimately did, whereas the IP editor started this thread instead). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I can kinda see where Will was coming from though, with things being completely reverted over and over, I can see where he thought immediate protection was necessary. I don't think complete protection was necessary though. I also can see where he should have asked another admin since he was involved to lock the page down for him. But, I don't think it was a big deal that he locked the page down himself since there was vandalism edits going on. I don't think he should do it again though. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to take a less strident approach with User:71.105.39.114. If they establish a user account, I'd be happy to mediate in some way, if at all helpful. No need to scare away everybody who has a rough start, is there? Two cents... Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Most definitely. Re-reading my first comment I can see that came out harsher than I intended. And even if they do not start an account, if they have legitimate points/concerns about the article content than User:71.105.39.114 is obviously just as entitled to edit as anyone else. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

New editors sometimes have a rough start in Wikipedia, for various reasons. I committed a copyright vio when I first started editing as an IP, but fortunately the responding admin patiently explained the policy and let it go at that. We should handle new editors with kid gloves at first. Cla68 (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Bigtime, the IP did take a threatening tone, so your chastisement was timely. Cla86, I'm glad I had some interested people helping me at first. The best way to describe WP sometimes is morass. Although I am surprised at newly minted IP's who navigate so well into the treacherous waters of the various administrator notice boards! Let's try to get our -presumably- young IP friend to calm down a bit. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

How is this an administrator issue anymore? Can we just resolve this and just let this happen in the appropriate venues, where it appears to be going anyways? --Jayron32 02:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I only started editing this page the other day, so I'm not familiar with the full history that the IP user is talking about. I protected the page due to the IP's use of a false edit summary, [32], and his blind reverts. The editor appears to have been edit warring over the past several months and to have ownership issues along with a chip on his shoulder about the past interactions. I've asked him on his most recent talk to discuss his edits. Except for downgrading the rating of the article, it appears he's never used the talk page. If he would discuss his edits with the other editors I'm sure this could be resolved more easily.   Will Beback  talk  02:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Note, too, this message in which he implies that he can't be blocked due to shifting IPs.[33]   Will Beback  talk  02:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If the IP editor is referring to his or herself with the last diff then that's clearly no good, and the cited edit summary did seem to be misleading (although some stuff was removed). You seem to be admitting though that this was not vandalism, since you protected "due to the IP's use of a false edit summary," and as such I don't think it was appropriate for you to protect the article since you were not simply reverting a persistent vandal. I fully agree that discussion needs to happen on talk, but perhaps you can unprotect for now, and if the IP returns to revert I'm sure you can quickly find an admin to block for edit warring (you should not be the one to do it). If the IP editor starts talking on the talk page or just lets things stand as they are now then we're all good. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've unprotected the article. Let's see what the editor does.   Will Beback  talk  04:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a charade. This editor (The one behind the IP) and his socks have approached exhausting my somewhat limited patience for silliness. While semi-protection might have been a premature tactic to combat further vandalism, such as deliberately adding false material[34], this editor (MasterUser:Michael93555 is well versed in Wikipolicy, has openly declared his desire to have me blocked [35] and cannot accept that they have been blocked for sockpuppetry) actually succeeded in having an innocent user blocked through deception (see here and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michael93555/Archive)). This IP hopping user's intimacy and distortion of their own history as evidenced here plainly show malicious intent and a desire to manipulate everyone they come in contact with. If more evidence is needed I can provide it. Leave Will alone, he has acted within policy at every step of the way.Synchronism (talk) 09:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Umm, Ho is this User:Synchronism. How did this user get involved. I don’t even know them. I never talk or seen this user before. I never made a user name and I am not a block user.I think they think I'm someone else--71.105.181.222 (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• This si the first I've heard of User:Michael93555, but now that I look it's quite clear that the IP user is him. The tone and word usage are very similar, as are the topics of interest. The IP is obviously familiar with Wikipedia. I think a range block may be needed.   Will Beback  talk  19:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• I think that that would be a good idea. But if you do the range block you would be blocking thousands of people and they wont be a able to edit. Do you think that I'm worth all of the clitoral damage. I know for a fact you all can't do a range block. But, I may be wrong. I hope you make a right choice. I don’t want to be responsible for this.--71.105.181.222 (talk)--209.44.123.5 (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• • I'll do my best to avoid any "clitoral damage".   Will Beback  talk  21:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    • The preceding comments must be recorded for posterity after this discussion closes... Shereth 21:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
      • At the very least, that IP address has apparently been away from home too long. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Now that is funny! I lol'd. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Oh, you're just being pussies about it. HalfShadow 22:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
            • Better drive away from this one. In a Volvo. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
              • Between this and a reference farther up the page to a collection of proxies as a "honeypot", maybe a lot of editors here need to find something soft and warm for the weekend. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
                • I did just that last night, which is why I will most likely be working on penicillin-related articles for the next 7-10 days. Law _{type! snype?} 02:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• My Disclaimer

• I given good faith edits and with due care, but I accept no responsibility for the range block , either directly, indirectly, or implied. Any person or organization who is range blocked.. whatsoever, I tell them is not my fault.--71.105.181.222 (talk)--209.44.123.5 (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• • If you guys need an uninvoled admin to institute a rangeblock, just compile a list of IPs somewhere, either as a subpage or email them to me if you want to avoid a BEANS issue. I'll set something up. And I will avoid any "clitoral damage". I'll be gentle, honey. It won't hurt a bit... --Jayron32 22:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    • It looks like a range block won't do because now he's using open proxies. user:209.44.123.3, user:76.208.180.222. He bragged in the past that he can't be blocked, so I guess he's putting it to the test.   Will Beback  talk  22:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's pleasing to know all proxy users seem to lack intelligence; they basically scream 'Hey stupid, I'm over here!' and then wonder how they got caught so fast. HalfShadow 22:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

He was kind enough to leave a list of his recent IPs in this taunting message, [36], though they're fairly obvious.   Will Beback  talk  22:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I told you all that I can not be blocked. I think it’s a good idea to just to leave me alone and maybe you see that I'm not a big as a problem as you all are making me out to be. I'm a editor that wants be turned into a productive contributor, if I were "taken into hand" so to speak. That is, treated with some patience and a little kindness...--71.105.181.222 --209.44.123.1 (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, enough "fun" from the anon, a range block should be immediately put in place. The user is obviously not here for anything good and with posts that start with "I told you all that I can not be blocked", there is nothing good that can come from it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, I think 209.44.123.1 is a seperate user from 71.105.39.114. 209.44.123.1 is located out of Laval, Quebec, Canada while 71.105.39.114 is located out of Victorville, California. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There are open proxies all over the world.   Will Beback  talk  23:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think it might be high time to start finding them and shutting them down. The ones this anon is using to start. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest re-semiprotecting the Ridgecrest, California article. Cardamon (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Wikifan12345's personal attacks on Talk:List of terrorist incidents, 2009

There has been a ongoing discussion on this talk page between myself, Wikifan12345, O Fenian, GeorgeWilliamHerbert, SeanHoyland and Seb az86556 about whether classifying incidents as terrorist without a supporting source is orginal research or not. I'll be honest -- I proposed significant changes that have been met with criticism (and some support); however I have continued to discuss the matter civilly and refrained from editing the article while discussions continue.

Wikifan12345, on the other hand, is disruptively repeating personal attacks against me. He keeps bringing up "Jews", arguing that I am a "manic" anti-Semite. I don't thnk my character or mental health is really relevant to the discussion.

Here are some excerpts: "Whether you believe blowing up Jews is somehow consistent with legal conflict and not terrorism is your POV "... "everything to do with his vendetta against Jews and Israel" ... "Or whether killing Jews in the Jewistan is justified under the ambiguous"..."Yes, you are manically obsessed with Israel and Jews."

Nobody else on the talk page seems to agree with his attacks and he has been repeatedly warned by GeorgeWilliamHerbert to stop the personal attacks. I am tempted to just erase the personal attacks myself, but I know he would just edit war against me. I did remove some Israeli incidents from the article in ONE revert, but to interpret that as a vendetta against Jews is nonsensical. Factsontheground (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This unfortunately came to my attention after the HRW ordeal. I think Wikifan12345 is being extremely belligerent in the RfC on that talk page. But in some cases I don't think your behavior has been much better. I would suggest that both of you take a break for a little while as the "terrorist incidents" RfC looks completely useless for its designed purpose and more like a war zone. I am not an admin so I can take no action, but for the moment it seems that tempers are way too heated to be productive. Awickert (talk) 06:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not angry but I have no interest in edit-warring if that is what you are suggesting. I just hope FOTG won't follow me to the next article I edit. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Suggest speedy close. Moving legitimate content dispute to an ANI is dubious. FOTG has been following me around since last week, to BBC and HRW. I accused him of being "manically obsessed" with Jews and Israel because he edit-warred out almost all of the incidents in Israel without a single post in talk. 1 2, 3, 4, 5, and that is just a sample. History of edits at 2009.

• The summaries were lacking, with rationales like "Source does not categorize incident as a terrorist attack." In fact, more than half of the sources explicitly referred to the acts as terrorist incidents. I mean, he removed a incident that involved an Al-Qaeda cell. Can we all agree Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization? :D

• Then when I reverted the page back to a non-dispute state and ask that he explain his edits more thoroughly in discussion, he edit-warred again and accused me of original research.

• Even after I posted the source and copied/pasted direct text, he still denies the sources referred to the incidents as acts of terrorism. Then he whipped out the civility card when I called him on it.

Real mature. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The content dispute is a separate issue. This is about a behavioral dispute. Anger or no, comments like "real mature" are vindictive, and likely to score you negative brownie points here. Now if you are suggesting that FOTG is being very WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and is wikistalking to push your buttons, that's another matter. The content dispute can stay on the RfC on the page, but I don't think I'll have any argument when I say it's going nowhere, so this is to handle the behavioral issues and get things back on track. Hopefully. Awickert (talk) 06:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

As a number of people have agreed on the talk page and elsewhere, the article should only list incidents that are described as terrorism by a reliable source. Although it may appear obvious to you that an incident is terrrorism, that is not how Wikipedia works. Addition need to be supported by a source or justified on the discussion page. And I can't believe you are still complaining about edits I made a week ago! They have long since been reverted (by you and others) and the discusssion has moved on.

You seem to think that instead of participating in the discussion you can derail everything by continually attacking me.

Factsontheground (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Also the so-called "Al Qaeda" cell was actually belonging to the Janud Ansar Allah organization as the reference [states http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1244371116416]. Factsontheground (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

They updated the posting, it originally referred to the group as belonging to a Al-Qaeda cell. Either way, it is still a terrorist attack as confirmed by the article. But when "Al-Qaeda" was painted all over the article last month, you still removed it. You simply did not read the article and deleted everything remotely Jewish.

Also, The Jerusalem Post is a reliable source. Most of the edits you removed described the incident as acts of terrorism, and yet you continue to deny this. A couple hours ago I restored only some of the edits that were 100% confirmed and obvious, but there are a couple others but should be debated - not viciously warred out. It is rather odd for you to suddenly feel a sense of emotional distress when you've routinely cast me as a troll, pro-Israel warrior, POV-commander, etc...etc...Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to continue the content dispute here. It's not the place for it. All I want is for your personal attacks on the talk page to stop.

So far you haven't even admitted that your behaviour has been wrong in any way. I don't think you have any insight into why people find it offensive when you continually accuse them of being "obsessed with Jews". Factsontheground (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you for real? Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place for this issue. AN/I is not a part of the DR process. IronDuke 14:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

From looking at the RFC on the article talk page it seems that FOTG's complaints about personal attacks have some basis (though some of the quotes would need diffs to substantiate them); and Wikifan's response seems to be aggression, not regret or discussion or understanding. Besides those FOTG mentioned, Wikifan repeatedly calls him a vandal and claims he "manically removed" sources, even bolding "manically". And his general attitude on the page is confrontational, rather than seeking a resolution. Rd232 ^talk 18:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, in case there was any doubt about what Wikifan meant by those comments about FOTG in relation to Jews and Israel, a week ago in relation to the same dispute he wrote "It is not a content dispute when an editor is clearly editing with a hateful and antisemitic agenda." (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive553#Factsontheground removing terrorist attacks aimed at Jews and Israeli soldiers - List of terrorist incidents, 2009). Which WP:ANI let slide, despite the blatant violation of WP:NPA. Rd232 ^talk 19:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing new apparently

I don't know anything about this particular dispute but this is not the first time Wikifan12345 has engaged in unacceptable behavior as part of such a dispute. Not long ago I was having a hard time dealing with this editor myself and tried getting help on another board. See Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive67#User:Wikifan12345. Perhaps both editors need warnings but Wikifan12345 may need mentorship or something similar.PelleSmith (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

AN/I and similar are littered with reports about this user, as any regular viewer of these boards can attest. Perhaps it is about time to consider larger sanctions, as polite warnings do not seem to be getting through. Tarc (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Pelle smith, like most of the users here, had a major content dispute and what warring CAIR beyond belief. He removed every single one of my edits, and then he accused me of being a troll for question his massive deletion of material with dubious summaries (OR, undue). I have since left the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment—Whether Wikifan was out of line or not, it is important not to give immunity to the editor who started this ANI, who has also been engaged in highly disruptive behavior, and has also tried to bring a content dispute into this ANI post (inappropriate). I suggest giving a more thorough examination of both users' editing patterns, instead of focusing on a single editor. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the content dispute - I wandered over there as an uninvolved admin and at this point, we have multiple uninvolved admins reviewing, pushing back on both sides and looking for a best policy / best content solution.

I will leave to other admins a review of both primary parties' behavior here and there (and recommend both be reviewed). I prefer to either deal with a content / policy problem or a user / policy problem, but not both aspects of the same incident, to avoid COI on either side. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think its appropriate for a comparison to be made between these two users. Wikifan has a block log that is quite shockingly long for such a short time editing here and the use of personal attacks constitutes his primary mode of communication. Every time he is brought to the board, there are editors who try to deflect attention from his behaviour by calling for a more thorough examination of the complainant. Not right. Not right at all. Tiamut^talk 20:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Almost all the blocks are from edit-warring, and mostly came to be as a result of involved parties reporting me. It really cannot be applied here IMO. ChriO has his sysops removed because he had a major COI and was blocking several editors at Israel and the apartheid analogy with little warning. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are the one who steps over the line, it doesn't matter who reported you; you were at fault for violating editing guidelines. And I believe ChrisO resigned the admin the bit in the wake of the Macedonia2 ArbCom case. It had nothing to do with the article on Israeli apartheid. Tarc (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I would support trying to do something about Wikifan. His editing and use of sources is poor, he reverts constantly, and filibusters on talk pages, making normal editing close to impossible on whatever page he's working on. When thwarted, he reverts to insults. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It's been suggested more than once that there should be an WP:RFC/U on Wikifan's conduct (including here, less than two weeks ago - Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive67#User:Wikifan12345). Based on the history at ANI, and his block log, and my personal interaction with him in a couple of places, I think that's certainly warranted. Rd232 ^talk 18:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

They don't have grounds when FOTG mercilessly edit-wars out everything remotely Jewish/Israel exclusively with dubious summaries, then call me a POV warrior when I point out his summaries did not match the content of the source. FOTG has a serious issue with Jews and Israel and it is very very offensive. He's call me a troll, POV-warrior, and even implied I was member of the Israel lobby. Also, he is following me around to articles I've been editing and warring those additions too. Rd, I know you mean well but this is a COI because me and you have had serious content disputes before. Has anyone considered perhaps this is an an attempt to steamroll an unpopular user out of the List of terrorist incidents, 2009. The article has boiled down to me and FOTG, so if I'm gone he can once again remove all my edits at-will. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

So, you think that: "if I'm gone he can once again remove all my edits at-will". But then, if he isn't the sole editor left if you are gone, how come not a single other editor will defend your edits? Count Iblis (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> Uh?

• A) All the editors here have been involved in past disputes both content and personal.

• B) None of these users except for FOTG are involved in the List of terrorist incidents, 2009 except for R2 who came much later.

• C) You just dismissed everything else I wrote above.

• D) FOTG reported me for edit-warring without even notifying me, and that went no where here I just discovered that today..

• I also submitted an ANI on FOTG with similar complaints regarding his approach to the article. To say this ANI is genuinely about behavior is naive at best and dishonest at worst.

I suggest a speedy close and returning back to the content dispute at the original article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

So all the editors commenting on your behavior here are just doing so in bad faith because they have been on the other side of a content dispute with you? Likewise any notion that the specific issue reported first above has anything to do with behavior is unfounded because really this is just a content dispute? If you truly believe that version I strongly suggest mentorship at the very least because you really don't seem to get what about your behavior is inappropriate.PelleSmith (talk) 02:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith? No, but this is not unique for ANI Pelle. And considering I lodged an edit-warring report against you (one of my first ever), then you posted an etiquette notice (after you called me a troll), and now you are here endorsing sanctions against a user you've had considerable differences with....certainly does not resonate faith-wise. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I may have come into this too late to see the build-up. I consider this genuinely about behavior. Wikifan may think that this is naive, that I am somehow furthering a conspiracy against him. I do not see it that way. Right now, the amount of non-content-related material on the talk page at "terrorist incidents" is unproductive and therefore intolerable. In spite of not being an admin, I would be in favor of, for fairness sake, week-long topic bans for both Wikifan and FOTG on Israel-related content so that real work can actually be done. As I see it there is waste-of-time drama unfolding there and here. (As for previous contact, I have only been involved in mediating HRW recently, so I can say I am pretty uninvolved overall.) Awickert (talk) 07:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Did I say conspiracy? No, I did not. I don't understand why you would be personally comfortable with a week-long topic ban when you admit being "pretty uninvolved overall." This is my impression: "Yeah, I don't know these two users and can't say I've been very involved but clearly something's up so let's just ban em' both." :D I would never call for such a punishing act if I didn't have at least a general experience beyond "uninvolved." Maybe it's just me. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, one of the main problems in the ANI has been that so many involved editors made comments about who should be blocked. We definitely need more uninvolved editors to comment, and whether or not you approve of Awickert's suggestion, it is a welcome step towards resolving this. Hopefully more uninvolved administrators comment here and give their opinions. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

True that. I interpreted Awicket's "uninvolved" description as unaware. As if he simply skimmed through the complaints and applied natural deductive reasoning that unfortunately was not consistent with objectivity. Or perhaps I'm downright guilty and this is a zealous game of mental gymnastics - an argument that is easily made and difficult to refute. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Formal mentorship

I have talked to Wikifan12345 about this ANI and it appears that he supports, in principle, formal mentorship. I therefore recommend that, whatever decision is taken on this particular ANI, an uninvolved user/administrator takes it up to mentor Wikifan. Any volunteers? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

To be explicit, I strongly support mentorship as an alternative to sanctions or if need be, accompanying whatever potential "punishment" is applied. This, of course, assuming the punishment is not a totally unconditional topic-ban which would likely void the need for a mentor in the Israel/Palestine subject matter. Unless, of course, the mentor is simply for behavioral-improvements and not party to a specific genre of knowledge. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

A 1RR restriction for a few months could also work. If you can revert only once, you have to argue more on the talk page to find support for your edits. Making other editors angry on the talk page would be counterproductive. Also, when editing in the article, your best strategy to get your edits stick shifts toward editing in texts that are likely to be acceptable to people with other POVs. Count Iblis (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how well that'll work, but at least it's easy and doesn't involve finding a mentor and taking up their time (and Wikifan is hardly a weekend editor). Rd232 ^talk 16:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I would support mentorship if one is willing to take their time. My suggestion above was preventative, not punative, as such bans are supposed to be. I actually spent quite a bit of time reading (not skimming) in detail the various back-and-forths. I suggested the short topic ban for both parties because I saw next to 0 productivity in what seemed to be dominated by a giant brawl, and I thought one way to increase the signal/noise would be to take a break. My only feeling is that the talk pages should return to effectiveness. If mentorship is a more acceptable way to do so, then that should work well too. 1RR may also work, though I'm not sure that it will end the talk page mess. I think that what is needed is a commitment from Wikifan (and others) to WP:NPA and to not respond to personal attacks but rather to continue forging ahead on the content. (As a side note, Wikifan above disqualifies all editors from commenting; those involved are too involved, and those uninvolved are too unaware; someone has to do something!) Awickert (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively FOTG and Wikifan could collaborate to rewrite the lede for Julia Set so that it's less hopeless. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

1RR without other remedies will only worsen what SlimVirgin aptly called "filibustering" on talk pages. In my brief and recent experience with Wikifan this is the worst part. Repetitive arguments which usually amount to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If one doesn't respond on the talk page it seems like an unaware onlooker might think one is mindlessly reverting. Complete disruption and a total time drain.PelleSmith (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

In my (limited) experience of Wikifan12345, he has come across more as an aggressive, tendentious crank rather than a useful editor. We've seen this editor being brought to AN/I repeatedly; the same kind of issues come up again and again. He seems to have learned nothing from these repeated AN/I discussions. His unwillingness or inability to change his approach makes me think that mentorship is unlikely to be effective. I would suggest blocking him and moving on - he's taken up far too much of other people's time already. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This is certainly constructive. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh? -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan's thoughts here read like a buy-out: apologise so as not to get a punishment. Great. -DePiep (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I mean, more correct: here -DePiep (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The thought of users who have a strong bias (outside of the one that is not "involved), users whom I have lodged complaints against and vice-versa, users who have taken part in bitter disputes involving teams of editors, and users who have demanded banishment before would no doubt express glee at the thought of removing an editor who they rountinly disagree with out of the equitation. Lest we forget, the fact that I submitted a similar ANI against FOTG not-so-long-ago about his wholesale removal of almost every Israel/Jewish incident at List of terrorist incidents, 2009 should raise suspicions over a counter-ANI. I have no problem with mentorship and collaborative process, but in my opinion this is nothing less than a bandwagon. Take me away I guess. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan wrote: Yes, you are manically obsessed with Israel and Jews.". Why do ëven admins faal back to the "you-too" talk?

Attention : Sfan00_IMG / ShakespeareFan00

Resolved

 – Unless a current issue is defined, there's nothing to do here, so marking resolved. Black Kite 09:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Collapsed as re-posted from previous ANI archive and doesn't appear to be going anywhere

<blink> I am moving this out of the archive at J Milburn's insistence that it was the only way he would allow my comments to stand. I understand that this issue has been addressed by an admin already. </blink> Admin Tonywalton suggested that I post here. It seems strong admin action is needed, based on, e.g. A long^8 discussion of his [unreasonable bulk PRODding] the 3 topics starting here: [[37]]. past AN/I discussion of this user and its socks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive491#User:Sfan00_IMG the above are just the 1st 3 things I found. --Elvey (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC) Note to everyone – see this very very very very very very very very long thread on the subject as well. – iridescent 21:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC) I just added the words "A long^8 discussion of his" above, before my link to the thread you re-posted. (It seems people assumed I had somehow linked to a diff that demonstrated bulk action. I expected people to follow the link both because I had put it at the top of my notice, and because no single diff could demonstrate bulk action.)--Elvey (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Comment I suggested Elvey post here rather than on AIV as a more appropriate noticeboard. I also pointed out to Elvey the very^8 long thread mentioned by Iridescent. Since that thread appears dormant perhaps a resolution might be thrashed out here. Apologies in advance if I'm not too assiduous in posting on this page as I'm currently enjoying the fun off-wiki game called "keeping my solicitor focussed because I'm trying to sell a house" Tonywalton Talk 23:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC) Refactored sub-issues I've refactored without deleting, per IAR, to keep the thread on topic; I do recall that there are general guidelines (IIRC) warning against inappropriate deleting of others' speech. I've moved discussions I deem not central to the issue here.--Elvey (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Elvey's views on appropriate action I'm sorry, what admin action do you feel is required here? J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC) The previous AI/V resulted in a 6-month restriction, and yet it seems the behaviour has recurred, and others think the user has not learned. An admin who looks into this to verify that action needs to be taken and to take appropriate action will be in a good position to judge what sanctions are appropriate, so asking for (or providing) my view doesn't seem a valuable use of anyone's time unless I'm being tested, because I expect a closing admin would make his(or her) own judgment, and take action irrespective of what I suggested, and wouldn't care what the opening user thought. The closing admin would review the last sanction, etc., and take further action as he deemed appropriate, as well as action with respect to the sock issue. Besides, the threads I linked to provide others' suggestions as to what action is appropriate. What's needed now is action, not so much more words about the user's behavior, which has been discussed ad nauseum. --Elvey (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC) "What's needed now is action"... Erm, OK, ties back to the original question... What action? J Milburn (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Notification sub-issue Oh, and I jut saw this: I've also taken the liberty of letting ShakespeareFan know about this thread (via IRC). It is normally considered polite to let people know you are talking about them at the noticeboards. J Milburn (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC) here!!! I have long since done so. It would be polite for you to apologize for your hasty comment. That's not a particularly clear message; a link, at least, would be nice. I didn't notice it, and Sfan didn't notice it- my comment on IRC was his first notification. Can I ask if you have notified Sfan that you have decided to resurrect this thread from the archives? Again, I can't see any such notification.... J Milburn (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC) See below. As I'm not asking for discussion or admin action, I felt no further notification was necessary. --Elvey (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Then why you restored the thread is beyond me. Regardless, a notification would have been polite, to say the least. J Milburn (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Sock sub-issue (refactored from main discussion) There is NO indication on the current user page that this user is a sock of User:ShakespeareFan00, but the last AN/I says it is acknowledged. --Elvey (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC) Elvey - User:ShakespeareFan00 does indeed indicate that Sfan00_IMG is his sock, and bear in mind that IMG is his most active account.  GARDEN  21:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC) I have never visited that page, but I assume you are right. However, what I said is/was true: There is NO indication on the current user page that this user is a sock of User:ShakespeareFan00. I think that's a problem. It should be immediately apparent that a sock is a sock. When I came across Sfan00_IMG, as as others do, what told me I was dealing with a sock of ShakespeareFan00? Nothing, 'till I did an AN/I search.--Elvey (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure why you think that's a problem. An awful lot of people run alternative accounts for various reasons, and many do not reveal the links. It is public knowledge these accounts are one and the same (just look at the naming- it's clear the IMG account is an account there for a purpose, rather than a "general" one) and I don't think the fact you don't like the method used to convey this information is really a legitimate complaint. Perhaps Sfan will add that note to his alternative userpage, perhaps not. That's his choice, I think there are more important things to worry about... J Milburn (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC) I see now he's added it anyway. I assume that is this matter closed... J Milburn (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC) It should be immediately apparent that a sock is a sock. It is now immediately apparent that the sock is a sock.--Elvey (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC) More specifically, official policy states: "It is recommended that multiple accounts be identified as such on their user pages; templates such as {{[[Template:User Alternate Acct|User Alternate Acct]]}} may be used for this purpose." I wonder why you say you still aren't sure why I think there was a problem. (It goes on: "Use of multiple accounts to alter the apparent weight of an opinion is known as sock puppetry, and is not permitted. For example, multiple accounts may not be used to comment on proposals or requests, cast votes, or engage in edit warring. Policies apply to individuals, not accounts. Using a second account for policy violations will cause any penalties to be applied to both accounts. Blocked or banned users must not use sock puppets to circumvent a block") Policy recommendations should have been followed.--Elvey (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC) I just looked and see you're an admin, which means you're supposed to be aware of these policies, IIRC.--Elvey (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC) The policy also says that people may remain anonymous if they wish. I repeat, Sfan was open about this- the fact he was not open in exactly the same way you would be is not of great importance. This is not a great concern; to me, it looks as if you are simply looking for reasons to complain. J Milburn (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Getting to the point I had a look at some of the complaints on his talkpage, and can't see any major problem - people don't like being nagged about things they've failed to do, but in most cases it looks like they hadn't completed sources or rationales. Not much we can do about that. So what we need to know is - can you point us, using diffs, to any further disruptive or problematic editing or tagging by Sfan00 since the thread mentioned above? Thanks. Black Kite 09:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC) As with Black Kite, I fail to see what all the fuss is about. I constantly discuss Sfan's tagging with him, reviewing his edits and taking over on images with which he is not comfortable handling. You're going to have to provide some specific diffs. J Milburn (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC) There you go telling me what to do again. Maybe if you'd added "... if you want further administrator action to be taken." I don't think it's hard to figure out what the fuss was about: the long^8 discussion (which is both a fuss and an example of what the fuss is about), etc.--Elvey (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC) My initial comment was in 2 parts: 1: I am moving this out of the archive at J Milburn's insistence that it was the only way he would allow my comments to stand. That is why I restored the thread. (So I have not evaluated Sfan00_IMG / ShakespeareFan00 's further edits, so no, I can't provide diffs.) 2: I understand that this issue has been addressed by an admin already. In other words, I'm not asking for further action or discussion. An admin has taken appropriate action already; I consider the matter closed, unless you want to reopen it. (I wonder if I'm a worse communicator than I think I am. I think my original comment was at least comprehensible. ISTM that either I'm a lousy communicator, or something fishy is going on, as a apparently keep being misunderstood. )--Elvey (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC) PS. FYI: I'm going to retire from en. after this is done. Details/rationale/discussion if any will be on my user page. I expect to be gone from now 'till Monday too.--Elvey (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Um, okay... but why you're announcing it here I have little clue.  GARDEN  21:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Aditya Kabir and misuse of rollback feature 2

See also:User:Aditya Kabir and misuse of rollback feature (Incident Archive)

The roll back feature needs to be handled with care according to the policy. But it seems that User Aditya Kabir keep ignoring roll back policy by misusing this feature intentionally. His recent reverting action on this page ([38]) is indicating the violation of this policy. I left a message about this revert in article talk page ([39]), but he seemed ignore it. The user has again misused this feature by reverting this edit and made false accusation on user:Wbrz for vandalism and disruptive edit. Which is pretty much bad faith and personal attack. That edit made by user:Wbrz was not vandalism. According to Wikipedia:Rollback feature RBK should be used only to revert edits that are clearly unproductive, such as vandalism. But this is not happening here. --NAHID 18:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

That first edit is distinctly dodgy. The editor had undid something the admin did, with the admin apparently in error, and an edit summary left to show where the error was. The admin used rollback to revert without edit summary. Prima facie, it doesn't look good.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have omitted to warn the editor about this AN/I. I have now done so.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• User:Aditya Kabir is not admin.--NAHID 20:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Are we discussing the difference between this version and this version of the article Greater India? Yep, there was rollback involved, which obviously is a faster way to fix articles. Was there any wrong doing involved? And, why exactly is this person who is following me around, at times with some zeal (like here, here, and here... though it's kind of continuing process), trying to make an issue out of an edit summary auto-generated by twinkle? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

And, I propose that you guys strip me off my rollback status and block me for a significant amount of time, and also post hideous threats to my talk page. Do something, anything. I really need to get this borderline troll off my back. There is much more to do on Wikipedia than suffering from a vengeful stalker. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for uninvolved eyes at AfD

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parys Sylver (2nd nomination)

I nominated this article for deletion for reasons of notability after seeing it pop up again on my watchlist following a prior deletion discussion. Over the years, I have noticed various IPs/accounts trying to insert mentions of this person's name into various articles and every couple of months or so and have removed them as I found them, so I can definitely be considered 'involved' here.

After a little digging following discussion at the AfD, I believe that I have discovered a pattern of sockpuppetry, bad-faith editing and BLP vios going back several years, linked to the 2005 drama and associated sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CrystalCherry. I don't want to get into TL;DR territory here, so please take a look at my comment here for a summary.

Being quite familiar at the time (and having re-familiarized myself) with the person behind the CrystalCherry hoax, his writing style and methods of debate WRT to reliable sources and WP:V, my WP:DUCK sense is quacking here.

I appreciate that I'm close to this situation, so I'd appreciate input from some 'less close' eyes (and the opinions behind them) here. I realize that this is fairly complex, so if you need me to elaborate, just ask. Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it to see where it goes, but so far there has been no "uninvolved" commentary on the article (basically some suspicious SPA/sock comments and you calling them out as such) and maybe one or two other votes. This one should definately run the full 5 days before acting on it, at least. But I will keep it watchlisted, and if a definative consensus arises from uninvolved commentors, I will certainly close it as needed. --Jayron32 19:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I realise that all this talk of sockpuppets/SPAs could sidetrack the AfD, so I'm not going to do anything WP:SPI-wise until the discussion closes. If any more single purpose accounts pop up with !keep votes, I'll tag them appropriately but I don't think that getting drawn further into yet another circular debate WRT the wider issues is going to be helpful at this juncture. If anyone is interested in looking at the behavioural evidence/deleted contribs of the accounts I highlighted, it should become clear that something is rotten in Denmark, so to speak... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Troublesome New User

While in the midst of my search of recent contributions, I came across a new user, Youngmann (talk · contribs), going on a POV pushing/WP:OR spree across several law school articles. I've already engaged him, so I really can't do anything to stop him...he insists on adding [this edit] to TTT, this OR-ish edit to University Canada West and this lovely WP:OR-filled edit to Law school rankings in the United States. The conversation on my talk page isn't pretty...he doesn't really seem to want to get it. I'm not sure what "you go to Cooley" means, but I'm going on a limb and thinking it's some Canadian form of an insult...anyway...I've engaged him...I can't really do anything about it...he does appear to have surpassed 3RR on a few of these articles, but again...since I'm pretty involved in the dispute here, any action I take is going to be fairly uncouth. --Smashville^talk 20:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like "Cooley" is some form of ranking system: I referenced the Cooley ranking with different sources. No comment on the other aspects of this, but I'd not worry about being insulted just yet ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 20:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope they weren't refering to coolie. No, it looks like they meant www.cooley.edu/rankings. Jehochman ^Talk 20:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.cooley.edu/ - Its a law school that is ranked in the 4th tier by the US NEWS, yet creates its own ranking that states it is the 12th best law school in the country, even ahead of Stanford! It also has a nearly open admission policy. When I said "you do go to Cooley" I was inferring he was a student of the school, and that's why he was deleting my referenced criticisms of their ranking system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngmann (talk • contribs) 20:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

My post on University Canada West is a list of criticisms that are referenced. It is a private for profit university that created its own wikipedia entry, of which was a clear advertisement for how great it was. I saw on the news that it is in fact going through alot of controversy in Victoria BC and I wanted to highlight that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngmann (talk • contribs) 20:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

EDIT - I have gone in and fixed the University Canada West page to remove any apparent bias you think it may hold.

To be honest with you, I thought Wikipedia took better care of its new users, as not to sway them away (thus losing out on potential editors in the future in hopes of greater content.) My Wikipedia contributions are over. Let companies like the Eminata group (who are known to rip off students) advertise for free here, be my guest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngmann (talk • contribs) 20:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Potential Bomb Threat

Resolved

 – More silliness than ominous, I think.

Here. Can anyone in the UK contact the school? --Smashville^talk 21:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A bomb threat, really? From the same person who brought us this? I see no credible threat here, or even any threat at all. Why waste time on it? Friday (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Better safe than sorry? I didn't know we had started ignoring suicide/bomb/violence threats around here... --Smashville^talk 21:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A Trusted Source search shows the IP is located in Wigan, England. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A bomb threat would involve an assertion that there is or will be a bomb at the school. I see nothing like that here. Friday (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

So, if you turn on the news tonight or tomorrow and learn a bomb was detonated at that school, you will be OK with the statement you just made? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Friday that there is no credible threat here. If someone feels compelled to contact the school, however, there is no harm in that either. Shereth 21:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Considering that the rest of the IPs edits involve changing the content to such as "It has been involved in several different Fair Trade scandals, consisting of an evil bookshop and various fund raising events. Most recently, four pupils visited Potato, Tanzania in East West Africa, as Byrchall has links with Wazalendo Cannibal High School." and the fact that schools in the UK are currently shut, I think this can safely be ignored, don't you? Black Kite 21:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

They're still at it with the silliness. I've given them a Very Stern Warning. As for contacting the school - at 10:30pm on a Friday night when the schools are on holiday anyway? Unlikely.Tonywalton ^Talk 21:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently as a child I engaged in a great many arson threats. We had a song about the school burning down. Anyway, I blocked this IP for 31 hours. Friday (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• and since it's a dynamic IP, I semi'd the article for the night. Marked resolved. Black Kite 21:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

SPA deleter, possible sock?

Start Existing (talk · contribs)

Look at edit history. Very odd. Certainly a SPA. Certainly a newly created user.

What is not certain is his high level of experience for a new user, which commonly leads one to think about sockpuppetry. I wish he would just help me write the Ronald Kramer (business) article instead of wasting my time when I'm trying to write it. User F203 (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean. The first edits are reversions and apparently a lot of CSDs. MuZemike 23:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Update: I can work with this SPA around. Complaint withdrawn. If you think there is a problem, let me know (should we report all possible socks or just the really annoying ones?) User F203 (talk) 23:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Cry baby cry
cry cry cry
Make your mother sigh
you're old enough to know better
So cry baby cry
Start Existing (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

User F203, Perhaps you were a tad hasty on withdrawing that complaint. MuZemike 23:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

He could retort with "Happiness is a warm gun, Mama" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

bang bang, shoot shoot. I just warned him. If he continues like this, he can be blocked. --Jayron32 23:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Problem

Resolved

 – No admin action needed --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Ck415 keeps on creating article on non-notable CEOs, founders, and heads of companies. I have been tagging them for prod and AFD and the user just keeps on going. Joe Chill (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

At the top of this page it says, in bold, "Before posting a grievance about a user here, it is advised that you discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Joe Chill, can you please provide diffs to show that you have attempted to discuss this matter with the user in question. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 23:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I did what you said and added a message to his talk page. Joe Chill (talk) 23:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Doing a quick spot-check on those articles, a lot of them seem to be copyvios (though not copy-paste, they are very close) from the sources given. MuZemike 23:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding notability, you may want to review the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2009#Business people. It appears to me that a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, and that's what these individuals are, are notable. The new articles definitely could use some references, but those will come. Alanraywiki (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

But it was never added to the guideline. Just because it was accepted by a few people in a discussion doesn't make them notable. Joe Chill (talk) 23:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the message didn't work. Joe Chill (talk) 00:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This is premature for this noticeboard. See how the AFD debates go, if the articles are kept that's the end of the matter, if they are deleted, and if he continues to post new ones then come back. But so far he hasn't done anything wrong and no admin action is needed. Theresa Knott | token threats 00:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I just checked the first several and they actually far from being non-notable. These CEOs of major companies (not surprisingly) have a lot of reliable source coverage. I, for one, applaud Ck415 for attempting to start these articles. (I did give a gentle nudge to start writing more in his own words though.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone looked at the descriptions of these people and saw that they are almost exactly what they say on entries at www.equilar.com ? MuZemike 06:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reported all articles to copyright problems and have informed the user appropriately to inform here or on his talk page. MuZemike 06:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser needed to stop racist troll

Resolved

 – Handled. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Only minutes after Jews love Zyklon B (talk · contribs) was indefblocked for racially-tinged vandalism, Jews boiled to death (talk · contribs) showed up and was also blocked. Could any available checkuser block the underlying IP? Since this is blatantly obvious socking, I figured an SPI report wasn't necessary. Blueboy96 02:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Eh, Hamish Ross again. Re-blocked 149.254.0.0/16. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate AfD closure on WP:Articles for deletion/National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts‎

Resolved

 – Duplicates deletion review. --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts‎ was closed after being discussed for around 3 days. There was no chance of it being snowable, so it wasn't a legitimate closure of the discussion. Now users are edit warring over its closure. Could somebody please step in? I am somewhat involved as I placed my opinion on the AfD. Thanks. Killiondude (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's about zero chance that we're not going to have an article on this eventually ... but the AFD shouldn't have been closed. --B (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Whack!!! - Wikidemon (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh bother. I guess there's a deletion review going on. I didn't know until I went looking at the talk page of the closing admin. Killiondude (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The better question is the peculiarly schizoid defense of this stuff by wikipedia lawyers, given the general paranoia about images here. You can steal these images from this art gallery is OK even though it might harm that gallery's income, but you can't "excessively" display team logos even though such display can only benefit those teams? Gimme a break. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's a difference. Wikipedia's mission is to promote free (public domain, creative commons, gfdl, etc) media. These images, Wikipedia argues, are public domain and claiming copyright doesn't change that. We do not honor false claims of copyright. For example, plenty of state or college digital libraries claim copyright on images that are obviously PD by age. We ignore their claims and upload them to our heart's content. Personally, I think Wikipedia is wrong in this particular case - even though under US law, these images would be PD, as a signatory to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, we are obligated to honor UK copyrights. But if Wikipedia prevails in court, then we aren't "stealing" any more than it is "stealing" to make a photocopy of a book by Mark Twain. --B (talk) 05:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I argued the last time this subject came up that the gallery did this to themselves by failing to prevent the public from just grabbing and downloading these things. This will be an interesting case, once it gets settled, probably sometime in Sarah Palin's second term as President. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, GMaxwell makes a great point on Commons - allowing someone to lock original works of art in a vault and then claim copyright on any copies of them effectively keeps non-widely-produced works from ever falling into the public domain. If I obtain - legally or otherwise - a rare work of art or literature, under the museum's theory, I can make a copy of it, destroy the original, and now claim copyright over it. This is not a tenable copyright policy. The Copyright Clause US Constitution says that copyright must be for "limited times", meaning that there cannot be perpetual copyright in the US. Unfortunately, even though the Constitution trumps the Bern Convention, Eldred v. Ashcroft said that "effectively perpetual copyright" is not the same thing as perpetual copyright, so I doubt the court would find that the museum's locking up the originals constitutes perpetual copyright. IP laws are insanely out of whack. Drug patents are 25 years, which is why medicine is so expensive - drug companies only have 25 years to recoup millions of $ in research costs. But copyright lasts generations after everyone associated with it is long dead. Go figure. --B (talk) 06:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You might want to read the actual court decision in Bridgeman v. Corel, it's at Wikisource. The judge analyzed the situation under both US and UK copyright law and determined that under both sets of laws, the NPG's images are not copyrighted. Of course, the NPG disputes this, and a US court decision is not binding on UK courts, but it suggests a blueprint for future action in the UK if the NPG ever wants to take the risk. Thatcher 13:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Despite all that, wikipedia does not seem to have the ethical high ground here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, you are faulting the NPG for failing to to effectively prevent the public from downloading the high-res images. They tried their best. As the Guardian reported: "The gallery is halfway through a £1m project to digitise its entire collection: over more than 60,000 images are already on its website. In March a new feature was added – giving a low-resolution version of the complete works , but allowing viewers to zoom in on sections of images in high resolution. In March, Coetzee found a way past this software, and captured 3,014 complete images in high resolution". One of the issues that gets glossed over here is the circumventing of protection for the high-res images. And the fact that the lower-res images are freely available and not "locked up" at all.... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu

Resolved

Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) removed a block set by Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on Griffinofwales (talk · contribs), for editwarring on User talk:Jimbo Wales. However, Rodhullandemu was involved in exactly the same behavior (in fact, the exact same edits) that Griffinofwales was blocked for. As a result, I have restored the block and removed the (both in terms of policy, and in technical terms) incorrect granting of IP block exemption to Griffenofwales. Prodego ^talk 05:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure there's much that can be done at this point, aside from beating the dead horse... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been editing here for 4,902,345,311 hours. Tan | 39 05:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Dumb question, why did he grant the IP block exemption rather than just removing the autoblock to begin with? It's been a long time since I've had an occasion to remove someone's autoblock - do we no longer have the ability to do that? --B (talk) 05:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Because he didn't know how to do it, I assume. But that part of it really isn't the problem. Prodego ^talk 05:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I knew I remembered the name from somewhere. This isn't the first time Rodhullandemu's use of the block tool has been less than exemplary in a high profile case - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Block_review_of_User:Betacommand#Rodhullandemu. --B (talk) 06:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

User continually removes speedy deletions even after 48 hour block

Resolved

A user by the name of User talk:AlexHale has continually removed speedys on articles that he created as is the case here.Need admin help.--keystoneridin! (talk) 06:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like an invalid speedy on its face. I'm not overly inclined to block the user for removing it, even though technically it should have been removed by someone else. --B (talk) 06:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Invalid or not, if a user is continuing behaviour which garnered a block before, it shows an unwillingness to change and work with the community. In addition this looks like a bad faith nomination. Speedys are only for when the notability isn't apparent. 2 seconds of clicking would have clearly shown the singer is notable through his own article. All CDs by notable singers/bands are considered notable on wikipedia as far as I know.--Crossmr (talk) 06:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree that all CDs by notable artists should have their own article, but that aside, if you believe the speedy was in bad faith, and thus just an attempt to goad AlexHale into removing it, we certainly shouldn't block him for it. (I don't believe it was in bad faith - I think the speedy was in good faith, just incorrect.) Either way, the effect is the same. If he removes a speedy from an article that should be speedied, we can deal with it - but we're not going to block just for the sake of blocking. --B (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

As someone else has already pointed out on the AfD, the nomination doesn't make sense. If it was a good-faith nomination then Alex has acted improperly, if it wasn't a good faith nomination then Keystoneridin has acted improperly.--Crossmr (talk) 06:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• I would just like to point out that I did not attempt to "goad" anyone. The article contained little sourced information on the article. I used a boiler plate template because I was not sure. The template was then removed, so I took it to AFD. If anyone has any questions about my character in making this decision to ask for help or to nominate for deletion, please let me know. I would be happy to explain my case.keystoneridin! (talk) 06:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

  You were asked to clarify your reason for deletion and you haven't done so. The current reason makes little sense. You have been told in the past to be more careful with your speedy tags, and it should have been very apparent that this tag was not appropriate for this article. It is not about a band, person, or any of the other things specifically covered by that template. You don't tag something with a random speedy because you're not sure if one is appropriate or if it should be speedied at all. A lack of sources is not sufficient grounds to speedy something in most cases.--Crossmr (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Crossmr is correct. Someone removing an blatantly and obviously incorrect speedy tag from their own article should be well be covered under IAR anyway. The rule not to remove tags is for those where deletion is in any way possible to happen, not for those where deletion is not allowed from the start. Regards SoWhy 09:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

DinDraithou

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – dispute resolution is thataway. No need for admin action, and it would be nice if this conversation did not devolve to a state where admin action DOES become necessary. --Jayron32 14:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This user, DinDraithou, has been trouble all day today. Besides violating 3RR on Bourgeoisie despite a warning about that policy on his talk page earlier in the day, he has been abusive and uncooperative on discussion pages. On here and here, he has shown a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy and spirit and furthermore, a lack of interest in learning about such things. He has demonstrated incivility through ad hominem attacks, mostly regarding social class, including accusations that editors, as bourgeoisie, were naturally biased and that most wikipedia editors are "irrelevant nobodies." He furthermore made unfounded claims of threats. He also declared that the article on Niall of the Nine Hostages "belongs" to the descendants of Niall, but only the aristocratic ones. This might be related to his suggestion that we "lock America out, lock the trash out" (in an edit summary on the Niall article).

Seeing that this user had never received the 5 pillars on his talk page, I requested of an admin buddy that he do so. (This admin was offline and still is I believe.) When DinDraithou described himself as "new to wikipedia" and asked for my help, I wrote a note summarizing what I saw to be the problem and citing the 5 pillars. He felt patronized and betrayed since I hadn't done as he asked ("I asked you to deal with the problem") and declared us as cyber-foes.

Although in some sense having good faith, this user seems to have no intention of contributing positively to wikipedia. Arxack (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you've gotten upset by my early talk page style, but this complaint is vengeful and unfortunate. You should look over my actual contributions. Why did you appear in the discussion? DinDraithou (talk) 07:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

What this user describes as his "early talk page style" has certainly tempered over the last hour, it was in full force at 6:59 Wikipedia Time, complete with an accusation of being a lower class POV-pusher, and the claim that I can't be trusted because I used the phrase "most editors." Arxack (talk) 07:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Go to bed kiddo, like you said you were gonna do, and we'll work it all out later. If you're as tired and sleepless as I am then that's why we're here. We don't know each other but it seems like it I guess. DinDraithou (talk) 08:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

(out) Arxack, the message you sent DinDraithou looks perfect in my opinion—had helpful links and was civilly written. If DinDraithou refuses to be receptive and learn from it, that is his own choice and it's beyond our powers to change him. Things seem to have calmed down a bit, but judging by this userpage he just created then he might intend to go on being a class-warrior, and if that sort of POV-pushing continues then he may have to be sanctioned. For now I will just reiterate the 3RR warning, as edit warring is a much clearer violation and easier thing to deal with than chronic POV-pushing. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think your analysis is fair. Neither the bourgeoisie nor Niall of the Nine Hostages are your areas of expertise. Thus another administrator or two will need to take care of this. As far as I can tell the complaint exists because user became very personally unhappy. He also became too personal with me. DinDraithou (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't need those articles to be in my area of expertise to understand Wikipedia policy, and consensus, and when you are violating those policies. The issue here is not the content of the article, it's the way you are editing and the way you are interacting with other users. (As for getting "too personal", you made it personal when you started accusing editors of being 'wrong' because of their supposed class backgrounds, which is wholly inappropriate.)

For now, I have warned DinDraithou; as for the article, I have restored the text that DinDraithou was edit-warring over, but this time with cleanup tags so that it is clear the wording may need to be changed or sources added (if it helps, people could also add a {{disputed-inline}} tag to each one). Hopefully that will settle things for now; further discussion about what to do with the language should be done at the article's talk page. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes that is exactly what I accused users of when they gave evidence of it, it being entirely relevant. I think you're forgetting the subject of the article. In any case I haven't deserved a warning more than the user making the complaint and you need to be fair here. Give him or her one too and we'll be fine. DinDraithou (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't only a warning, it was an attempt to teach you more about Wikipedia policies and how to work with people, since you yourself admitted that you're new here. Arxack will be given warnings when he does something wrong; so far, he has not made a single revert to that article, I don't see what he should be "warned" for other than daring to disagree with you. I am being perfectly fair. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you haven't done all your job requires. He admitted not knowing anything about Niall of the Nine Hostages besides what the Wikipedia article offered but he made edits anyway. Then he followed me to the Bourgeoisie talk page for unclear reasons. You'll note he admits to starting his career as a vandal. Look into how I started mine. Don't be a lazy admin. Thank you. DinDraithou (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't "follow" you, I went to the Bourgeoisie page because the report linked to there. And, again, Wikipedia does not require people to be an expert in the subject to edit, or comment on, an article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You're not only lazy but tired or distracted and aren't reading well. I said he, not you, followed me to the Bourgeois(ie) talk page. This is ridiculous. You've acted too quickly and made me look bad in favour of an admitted (former) vandal. DinDraithou (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that you understand why you've been warned. This isn't about punishing us for the weight of our sins, it's about trying to encourage you to follow the wikipedia rules. The fact that I added sourced info to Niall without being an expert, that I followed your edits (as Rjanag once followed mine), and that I was once a vandal do not constitute any current issue. Your edit warring, refusal to provide sources for your claims, making responses on talk pages citing the presumed lower-classness of other editors rather than reliable sources, and your general incivility-- these things do violate wikipedia policy.

We're not looking for you go grovel or do jail time. We're just trying to explain the guidelines that govern how users of any social class edit any topic of wikipedia. It's not a big deal if you start out editing on the wrong foot-- most of us do, actually, and it's no shame whatsoever. Those of us who get past that do so because they learn from their mistakes. That's all we're asking of you here. Arxack (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

But then you made this childish complaint when I was causing no actual damage. It appears you were feeling "butthurt", if we can pardon the expression. DinDraithou (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The admin noticeboard is not the venue for two people to carry on a debate on this nature. Please take up a thread at WP:WQA or some other more appropriate venue. There is nothing for admins to get involved with yet, and I want to keep it that way. My advice is to take a little time to cool off, stop antagonizing each other, and if necessary pursue dispute resolution. Either way, this conversation is not appropriate for this venue, and I am marking it resolved. --Jayron32 14:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Addendum after several edit conflicts. I am closeing this discussion to further editing. Please just take a cool off, or if needed, pursue dispute resolution. This is not what this noticeboard is for. --Jayron32 14:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Altoids Man

Could somebody please suggest an appropriate course of action about User:Altoids Man's behaviour? I'm talking about an ongoing episode at Mark Weisbrot (see Talk:Mark Weisbrot as well as User talk:Rd232 and User talk:JRSP). Note that Altoids seems occasionally to edit as User:71.106.93.112 and User:156.80.10.182 (in a "haven't logged in" way, not a sockpuppety way). He has at least recently opened an Editor Assistance Request on the content issue, diff, which is something, but still, his comments and attitude have been problematic. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 08:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Editor notified about this discussion. Exxolon (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Anon talk attack

See edit filter 7 -- we're getting a huge proxy attack of AnonTalk spam. Help with blocking IPs would be appreciated. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel like a doofus, but how would I go about helping? I can't see any of filter 7's details ("It is hidden from public view") and can't see of the IPs' disallowed edits. TNXMan 19:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, you would need to make yourself an abuse filter editor to see that stuff -- if you do that, you'll see over 600 attempted AnonTalk edits. But they seem to have stopped, and Zzuzz and I have blocked all the IPs involved. Now I get to go back and check them all for proxies. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

They just started back up again. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to help where I can. Should I leave a block template on the IP's talk page? TNXMan 19:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother, they're zombies or proxies anyway. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This is more of a general question, but should we block anons that did not make any inappropriate edits (because those were blocked by the edit filter) in the first place? I mean, what do we gain from doing this? I've just looked at a bunch of contributions from the IPs that were caught by Filter 7, and none of them seemed to have made any actual edits. So.. if the filter works as intended, why do we need to block anyone? --Conti|✉ 19:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, several of them are making repeated attempts to add AnonTalk spam, so blocking them stops further attempts. For another, at some point, the spammer is going to try to figure out a way around the edit filter (check the attempted edits, he/she is already doing that, albeit unsuccessfully), and we may as well deny him/her some of the zombie computers being used. Finally, all of the attempted edits make the abuse filter run slower. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If i can comment,as a /b/tard, Anontalk is known to do the following things to spam: Do a simple text spam or rely on Unicode characters http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThe_ed17&diff=256371105&oldid=256371079 from 2008. Anontalk people are known to have a botnet. The wars between 4chan and Anontalk are quite notable. They spam each other wich results in side lulz. --Mixwell^{☞TALK☜STALK!!!} 20:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I reported some known AnonTalk crap to the spam blacklist a while ago, but it's so backlogged that my report was archived without being read. Is there any magic formula I can invoke to get people to actually read my reports there, or should I just not bother? — Gavia immer (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The spam blacklist will not work, as the links are just text, not an actual link. Prodego ^talk 23:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Well, that was bound to happen eventually. I would still like to know, though, whether to give up on the blacklist or not. I suppose I'll just see what happens the next time I report something. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing quick-fire spam-vandalism

There is a current spate of vandalism/spamming coming from multiple anons taking the form of inserting [Type "www.Anon" into your address field. Follow this by "Talk.com" and press Enter. Bookmark the resulting page. Done!]. sample Mr Stephen (talk) 10:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

All currently have the edit summary rukewl. Mr Stephen (talk) 10:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary was Reverted multiple instances of vandalism. earlier, then changed to rukewl. Esowteric+Talk 12:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the Anontalk spammer again. If someone less incompetent than me can modify filter 7 in the edit filter we can probably foil this latest method of obfuscating the URL we've blacklisted. ~ mazca ^talk 10:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Dragons flight (talk) 11:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

New pattern: [40] --Bongwarrior (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Spam bot: 195.50.135.218/217.114.3.220 (same as above)

User:195.50.135.218 is spamming multiple pages with blatant advertisement e.g. example. The pages being spammed seem completely random and less than a minute apart.

Oddly another IP User:217.114.3.220 has marked 195.50.135.218's user and talk pages for speedy deletion. On inspection that IP is also spamming in the same way.

Automated spam bots? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked those, there are more continuing to appear. This seems to be an odd spam bot operating on rotating open proxies, as far as I can discern. ~ mazca ^talk 10:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Many blocks and rollbacks later this seems to have just about stopped now. Keep an eye out. ~ mazca ^talk 10:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

All of these IP addresses are transparent and/or open proxies. Google tells that very easily.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

and another ? User:69.30.227.98 Earlypsychosis (talk) 11:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:DEFCON alert level raised to level 1. Alexius08 (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Noted above: 195.50.135.218 + 217.114.3.220 + 69.30.227.98
• Not above: 124.128.62.162 + 124.81.55.242 + 60.51.154.82 + 79.148.249.246 + 91.121.73.10

In case anyone wants the info. Johnuniq (talk) 11:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of those already got blocked an hour or so by myself, Bongwarrior, or various others. For anyone following this, I should re-emphasise Ryulong's advice above - quite a few of these IPs can be easily identified as open proxies by putting the IP into a Google search. If it's the case, it's worth blocking them for a longer period as an open proxy, rather than just 24-72hrs for spamming/vandalism. ~ mazca ^talk 11:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

69.30.227.98, one of the spammers, spammed the user talk page of 221.194.139.248 where I'd just issued a warning, suggesting human intervention as well as automated edits. Also, at least one of the edits I undid was followed up by a repeat spamming of that article. Esowteric+Talk 11:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It is on the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist twice for some reason. I'd suggest removing both and putting it on m:Spam blacklist.--Otterathome (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

These spamming IPs are all open proxies, most of them dynamic, which can be blocked for a few months on sight. The spam generally follows changes in the recent changes list, which is why it can look like it's following you around, so it's important to check each edit is reverted properly. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Related users:

• Lisa124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Damotclese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[41][42]
• EvilOverlordKira (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 91.104.143.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

--Otterathome (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Kookyunii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) needs to be reigned in

This user doesn't seem to be communicating and appears to be doing some damage. I spent some time cleaning out the article Konkuk University where probably 90% of the article doubling content added by this user was cut and paste copyvio..which no on else seemed to notice making it all the more difficult to remove as I couldn't just revert. There are numerous warnings piling up on their talk page. There also seem to be some communication problems.--Crossmr (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

User notified about this thread. Exxolon (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I've run across some of this user's edits, and can sympathize with Crossmr's experience... The edits are not simply wrong-- they could be easily reverted if they were-- but a mix of incorrect re-naming of subjects and article moves, combined with some good edits... In the editor's favor, after having been warned about the re-namings, this seems to have stopped. Dekkappai (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Scientology edits

I'm not up to speed on the situation with this, and these edits may be 'ok' technically, but there are two new editors, DianeticsBridgeToKnowingness (talk · contribs) and Scientologist Perspective (talk · contribs) busy turning Ron Hubbard into a philospher and apparently working together, see [43]. Whether this needs action or not I don't know, and I apologise if I'm wasting people's time or being unfair to newbies. Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The latter was blocked under username policy, and I've left a comment here on the former name if anyone is interested. Nja²⁴⁷ 16:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

off topic musing

There is often a fine line between a philosopher and a salesman. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC) They both try to sell you something, but one doesn't throw in a free kitchen knife set. HalfShadow 16:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Are you sure? Didn't Confucius say, "And if you buy my all-time best-selling book, Confucius Sez, you'll get Confucius: Sez Who? for half price! And as a free bonus, we'll throw in this personally-autographed set of electric chopsticks! Not available in stores! Limited time only! Call now! Operators are waiting!" To fill out this scenario, try to picture the distinguished-looking Confucius talking with the appropriate Asian accent, and delivered in the same manner as Billy Mays. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Billy has been about as quiet as Confucius these days ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Those two appear to be the same editor. Toddst1 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• It's called a 'sense of humor'. Say it with me: Sennnnz uvvvv hee-yuuuuu-merrrrrrr. And now we've learned something. Isn't that special?HalfShadow 17:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked DianeticsBridgeToKnowingness (talk · contribs) for WP:TE and calling two different admins trolls. Toddst1 (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

And I'm filing an SPI report for good measure. I was skeptical about doing this at first, given the quacking. But this unblock request makes it pretty obvious those two accounts are somebody's sockpuppets. Blueboy96 17:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

When they help us out by admitting it, standard procedure is to reduce the indef block by a day. Maybe even two. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Opinion needed re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reality Killed The Video Star

Resolved

Hi fellow admins. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reality Killed The Video Star has been withdrawn by the nominator because the article was expanded significantly after nomination but has a "delete"-!vote that was cast before the expansion. Could an uninvolved administrator assess the situation and decide whether it can be closed as withdrawn anyway? If possible, I'd like to nom it for DYK but for that it needs to be removed from AFD prior to the end of the 7 day period. Regards SoWhy 17:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done --Jayron32 17:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I was going to recommend waiting to hear from ThuranX, who wanted to delete, as there was not a huge rush to get this closed and up on DYK, but I'm certainly not going to undo Jayron's close. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Jayron.

@Bigtimepeace: I had similar thoughts but on the other hand, Thuran is an experienced editor and I am convinced they will not object Jayron's close since their delete-rationale was not fitting the article after the expansion anyway. But we will see. Regards SoWhy 18:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Just saw that Thuran expressed consent at Talk:Reality Killed The Video Star. Regards SoWhy 18:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

This user 96.50.99.29 (talk) keeps trying to engage me in an edit war in the article Surviving the Game and calling my edits vandalizm. I have already warned this person before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Surviving_the_Game Dumaka (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you're edit warring as well. I would note also that you do not own that article - Wikipedia articles are collaborative works, and refusing to let others work on them is considered highly disruptive. Comments like "This article is not to be touched." and "Stop touching my article!" are not acceptable. Work things out on the talk page with the IP editor. I don't see any need for administrative action at this time. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

However, edit warring is a blockable action.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 20:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the edit warring is not currently underway, and nobody's broken 3RR. I've cleaned up the article some, but that's all that needs doing right now. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

" This article appears to consist almost entirely of a plot summary. " -- so what is done, typically, to correct this? I mean other than nothing at all. JBsupreme (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Users Fair Deal and SoWhy

Resolved

 – Reporter blocked already. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

These two users are personally attacking me by deleting everything I post which is eligible. SoWhy deleted my TrajectoryMetal page based on his biased opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Id33k (talk • contribs) 19:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wish the page met our criteria for inclusion but it looks like it doesn't. Alexa rank >100k and the article you wrote was a discourse on Turd Ferguson and McNuggets. Please don't link articles to the website for reviews either. Thanks -- Samir 19:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that the o.p. has now posted an attack page, if someone who hasn't yet joined me in WP:FORMER wants to do the necessary. – iridescent 19:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this edit shows how much credibility should be given to this complaint. I've also taken a look at the deleted article, and endorse the speedy deletion. Id33k, please review our notability guidelines and what Wikipedia is not. Thank you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef, this friendly fellow clearly has no intention to contribute productively. ~ mazca ^talk 19:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wow, my first ANI attack post. Took me almost 10 months of adminship before someone started one. Although your case might have been a little stronger if you hadn't filled my talk page and userpage with obscenities. You know, people might think that arguments ad hominem are not very strong. As for the page, biased opinion? I never heard of that page before. You might want to try and make a case why this subject should be considered important or significant instead. Regards SoWhy 19:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat at WP:BLP/N re Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

Resolved

 – indef WP:NLT Toddst1 (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a spate of contentious editing at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and it seems to have spilled over into what might be deemed an impermissible legal threat at WP:BLP/N[44]. Maybe an admin should have a look?--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Block away. Clear legal threat. MuZemike 20:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this constitutes edit warring or a civility issue or something else...

Please forgive me if I'm posting this in the wrong place; I'm not really sure what category it belongs in.

User:Gorillasapiens has been reverting legitimate, good-faith edits to Same-sex marriage in Maine. He admits on another user's talk page that English is not his first language; this is evident in the wording of some of his edits, some of which are overly verbose and confusing. I have tried to improve these sentences by making them more easily understood and concise, but he has reverted my edits and seems to think that I'm trying to change the meaning of what he wrote. Additionally, he has been adding material to this article from other articles (Same-sex marriage in New England and various same-sex marriage articles from other states); User:Knowledgekid87 removed this material because there was no need to duplicate it, but Gorrilasapiens added it back, and also reverted Knowledgekid87's legitimate edits without any explanation.

Anyway, if this is not the place to discuss this, please let me know (and please accept my apologies). Thanks. —BMRR (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it seems like a potential combination of a few different things, so this would be an appropiate place to put it. Now, let's get some diffs so it can be easier to assess the situation.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 20:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are some examples. External links that I added, with clear/concise/easily understood descriptions -- and Gorillasapiens' changes, which were unnecessarily wordy -- Those changes were reverted by another user who thought simpler was better -- but Gorillasapiens changed it back -- so I tried to come up with a compromise -- but Gorillasapiens didn't like that either. Then he made this edit in which he added duplicate information from another article and changed wording so that it seemed like a future date had already taken place -- I changed the part about the future date because his wording didn't make sense -- but he changed it back. So I changed it again because his way was confusing and inaccurate, but he changed it again with no explanation of why. Then he reverted Knowledgekid87's legitimate, good-faith edits here, here, and here -- without explanation. —BMRR (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This section of the user's talk page seems relevant to this discussion.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 20:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for closure of a thread

Would an uninvolved administrator or uninvolved experienced editor who has not yet commented please close the thread Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Circumcision with a resolution or summary, as I had suggested here. Thank you. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)